dismissed EB-1A Case: Acting

MATTER OF M-1-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 19, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an actress, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the arts. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). This 
first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements 
have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that although the Petitioner satisfied four of the initial evidentiary criteria, she 
did not show sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrate that she is among the small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief asserting that she has 
sustained the required acclaim and has risen to the very top of her field. In addition, she points to 
inconsistencies in the Director's decision, stating that it acknowledges that she has satisfied "the 
requirements of four of the regulatory criteria, re-examines this evidence in the Final Merits 
Determination section to then claim that [the Petitioner] has not met the criteria, and finally states 
that 'USCIS will not conduct a final merits determination' after having done precisely that for 
several pages." 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
Matter of M-1-
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2 ). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she 
must provide documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories listed at 8 C .F. R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain media, and 
scholarly articles). The regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)( 4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
(discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner met four of the 
initial evidentiary criteria: published material under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), judging under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), display of her work at artistic exhibitions under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii), and leading or critical role under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). On appeal, the 
Petitioner maintains that she also meets the nationally or internationally recognized awards criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it 
does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
2 
.
Matter of M-1-
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards fhr excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The record indicates that the Petitioner cofounded a theater company , and that its 
production premiered at the in 2011. 1 She further asserts: "That year, 
won the highest honor at the Best Production, thanks to 
her efforts both on stage and behind-the-scenes." In addition, the Petitioner explains that the 
"recognizes outstanding work that has appeared on its own stages with the Annual 
The record includes a "2011 
announcement in AustralianStage.com (under news) listing as "Best 
Production." The Petitioner also provides a congratulatory certificate from the 
indicating that this award "consists of: four weeks use of in kind rehearsal space and $2000 toward a 
development, or $4000 towards a production that is included in the seasons , 1 
full page ad in a 2012 to promote your company or an upcoming 
production." We note that the congratulatory certificate and information in AustralianStage .com do 
not specifically identify the Petitioner as an award recipient. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that coverage of the in 
AustralianStage .com renders "Best Production" award a nationally recognized prize in 
Australia. The Petitioner , however, has not provided sufficient documentation regarding the 
aforementioned website's readership to demonstrate that coverage in its news section is 
indicative of national recognition.2 In addition, the article in AustralianStage.com does not discuss 
the "Best Production" award's level of recognition in Australia. Furthermore, the record indicates 
that nominees were limited to those productions that appeared on the 
stage. For these reasons, the evidence is not sufficient to show that this 
theatre's "Best Production" award constitutes a nationally or internationally recognized award for 
excellence in the field. 
In addition , the Petitioner asserts that received a significant monetary grant from the 
Department of Culture and the Arts (DCA) (West Australia) in 2013 to tour around West 
Australia. She presents a webpage from DCA indicating that the organization 's purpose "is to foster 
the cultural development of Western Australia through the provision of quality services and funding 
1 The 
73" people . See https 
record of proceedings. 
is an "independent live theatre venue" in Australia with a main space that "seats up to 
-~-/artists /venue-info/, accessed on December 12, 2018, copy incorporated into the 
2 The record includes information from AustralianStage .com' s advertising webpage asserting that "[t]ogether with 
Australian Stage Jobs , the sites attract over 80,000 visitors per month ." The Petitioner, however, has not established that 
this combined monthly number of visitors is sufficient to demonstrate that AustralianStage .com' s coverage is indicative 
of national recognition . We will further address this evidence under the published material criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204 .5(h)(3)(iii) . 
3 
.
Matter of M-J-
programs, and the implementation of Government policies and initiatives ," but this webpage does 
not mention the Petitioner, , or their receipt of any project funding. The record also includes 
an article, entitled stating that DCA provided funding of $90,000 to 
"allow to tour their production of to regional centres as part of 
the project." The name of the publication in which this article appeared 
was not identified, nor does the article mention the Petitioner. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not 
provided sufficient documentation to demonstrate that such press coverage is indicative of national 
or international recognition. Finally, the article and DCA webpage do not discuss the 
project grant's level of recognition in Australia or internationally. The evidence 
therefore is not sufficient to show that such regional arts funding constitutes a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. Accordingly, the Petitioner has 
not established that she meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien 's work in the field.for which classffication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date. and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Director found that that the Petitioner had demonstrated her eligibility under this criterion. For 
the reasons outlined below, we find that the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient documentary 
evidence showing that she meets the requirements of this criterion. Accordingly, the Director's 
determination on this issue will be withdrawn. 
The Petitioner presented articles in The West Australian entitled 
and ., but 
these articles are not about the Petitioner. While the aforementioned articles offered reviews or 
information relating to theatrical productions or projects in which she participated, they are about the 
shows or events and not the Petitioner. This regulatory criterion requires "published material about the 
alien." Articles that are not about her do not meet this regulatory criterion. See. e.g., Negro-Plumpe 
v. Okin, 2:07-CV-00820 at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 2008) (upholding a finding that articles about a 
show are not about the actor). For example , is a theatrical review of 
and is about that production rather than about the Petitioner . Similarly , 
is about actor ____ and only mentions the Petitioner in passing . 
The record includes a blog in Hi!ffingtonPost.com entitled 
This blog guide lists (a show featuring the 
Petitioner) among more than 25 other production summaries, but she is not identified in the posting. 
While the record establishes that Hu:ffingtonPost.com is a form of major media, the aforementioned 
material is not about the Petitioner. Similarly, the Petitioner presents information retrieved from the 
3 With regard to the on line article entitled a duplicate version in the record of this May 
2015 article by ______ appeared in print under the title 
4 
.
Matter of M-1-
New York Times "Find a Show" web portal for This 
search result listing the aforementioned production's plot description, ticket information, show 
times, and reader reviews does not mention the Petitioner and therefore it does not constitute 
published material about her. 
The Petitioner submitted announcements m BroadwayWorld.com's "Off-Broadway" platform 
entitled 
and but these promotions' authors 
were not identified as required by this criterion. The former promotional announcement only briefly 
mentions the Petitioner and the latter one is about the production instead of the 
Petitioner. In addition, she provided information from BroadwayWorld.com's advertising webpage 
asserting that its website delivers "more than 4.5 million visitors per month.'' USCIS, however, need 
not rely on the self-promotional material of the publisher. See Braga v. Poulos. No. CV 06 5105 SJO, 
a.ff'd 317 Fed. Appx. 680 (C.A.9). The evidence is not sufficient to show that the readership or 
number of online views for BroadwayWorld.com elevates it to major media relative to other 
publications. 
The record contains a review of but the Petitioner 
is not mentioned in this online review. In addition, she provides a blog post from the website of 
Time Out New York containing a compilation of reviews relating to the 2016 
This blog post offers a review of and includes a brief discussion of the Petitioner 
relating to her work. The record, however, does not establish whether this blog is produced by Time 
Out New York as opposed to being an open-source site through which anyone can post a blog entry. 
While the Petitioner provided information from Time Out New York's advertising webpage asserting 
that this entertainment guide has a weekly readership of 330,000, this self-promotional material is 
not sufficient to demonstrate that the blog publication qualifies as a form of major media. 
The Petitioner provided an article in Cool Hunting entitled 
but this article includes no mention of the Petitioner. Furthermore, the 
information from Cool Hunting's media kit is not sufficient to establish that this publication is a 
form of major media. 
The record includes articles about the Petitioner in The Wire Mag 
Sunday Times NYTheatreGuide.com 
Australian Stage 
Melville Times Reporter 
Magazine , 0uardian t,xpress 
, an ./wire.com 
4 E . , astern 
Express 
. Robb Entertainment Magazine 
Although the Petitioner provided information about the 
4 The record includes information from AustralianStage.com·s advertising webpage asserting that "[t]ogether with 
Australian Stage Jobs, the sites attract over 80,000 visitors per month," but this self-promotional information is not 
sufficient to show that the website's level of monthly visitors elevates it to major media relative to other publications. 
.
Matter of M-1-
aforementioned publications from their websites, without additional documentation this self-­
promotional material is not sufficient to show that they qualify as major media. Finally, none of the 
remaining articles submitted for this criterion were about the Petitioner and in major media. Based on 
the foregoing, she has not demonstrated that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel. as a judge <~f 
the work qf others in the same or an allied field qf specffication for ·which 
class[fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The record supports the Director's finding that the Petitioner meets this criterion. For example, the 
Petitioner provided evidence indicating that she published two theatrical reviews for NY Theatre 
Guide. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the .field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
The Petitioner submitted documentation reflecting that she performed in stage productions at venues 
such as the 
and As such, the record supports the Director's determination that she 
fulfills this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role f<Jr organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Director found that that the Petitioner had demonstrated her eligibility under this criterion. For 
the reasons outlined below, we find that the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient documentary 
evidence showing that she meets the requirements of this criterion. Accordingly, the Director's 
determination on this issue will be withdrawn. 
The Petitioner contends that she satisfies this criterion based on her role as executive producer and 
artistic director of her production company. The record includes a letter from 
an actress, acting coach, and director, indicating that she worked with the Petitioner on 
a web series in which the Petitioner stars. states: "Produced by 
[the Petitioner's] own production company, , the comedy series has garnered significant 
attention on the internet. Indeed, some episodes boast over 17,000 views on YouTube - an 
extremely impressive number for an independently marketed web series." In addition, 
asserts that the Petitioner has performed in a "leading and critical role as cofounder, 
executive producer, and artistic director." 
While the record shows that the Petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for the 
evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate that her company has a distinguished reputation in theatre, 
film, or web series production . For example, the Petitioner has not shown that the published 
material relating to plays sets it apart from others in the industry or otherwise reflects its 
6 
.
Matter of M-1-
distinguished reputation. Similarly, the record does not demonstrate that the stature of 
awards and nominations elevate the company to having a distinguished reputation. 5 With regard to 
awards, they have already been discussed under the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i). Further, while senes had two entries among the 
hundreds of nominees at the record does not establish the significance of 
these nominations or the caliber of the competition. 6 Accordingly, the evidence is not sufficient to 
establish that is a production company with a distinguished reputation. 
In addition, the Petitioner contends that she has performed in a leading or critical role as an actress 
for the (a British site-specific theater 
company), (New York), and (New York). As it relates to a 
leading role, the evidence must establish that a petitioner is or was a leader. A title, with appropriate 
matching duties, can help to establish if a role is or was, in fact, leading. 7 Regarding a critical role, 
the evidence must demonstrate that a petitioner has contributed in a way that is of significant 
importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. It is not the title of a 
petitioner's role, but rather the performance in the role that determines whether the role is or was 
critical. 8 
With respect to the Petitioner's acting performances for the this organization's 
artistic director, states that she cast the Petitioner in and the one-
woman show asserts that "would not have been successful without [the 
Petitioner's] incomparable talents." However, the Petitioner did not show how her acting role in 
these two productions reflects her leading or critical role for the overall production company. 
Furthermore, while the record includes information about the from its profile on 
Tumblr.com (a social networking website) and promotional material and succinct reviews relating to 
and this documentation is not sufficient to demonstrate that 
has earned a distinguished reputation. 
In addition, Associate Director for asserts that he cast 
the Petitioner "in a special production of and that "she delivered an 
enchanting performance that contributed to the overall success of this renowned show." 
further indicates that he also cast the Petitioner "as a leading physical theater performer for 
a secret virtual reality project called which had a 6-week run at 
in New York." Again, the Petitioner has not shown how her acting role in these specific productions 
demonstrates a leading or critical role for the overall theater company. We also note that the record 
5 See USC IS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at IO (defining Merriam-Webster's Dictionary definition of 
"distinguished" as marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence). 
6 For instance, the Petitioner provided information from the organizer stating that "preference is 
riven to nominees who attend our event." 
See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update AD 11-14 IO (Dec. 22, 20 I 0), 
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCI S/Laws/Memoranda/i-140-evidence-pm-6002-005-1.pdf. 
s Id. 
., 
.
Matter of M-1-
includes a New York Times theatre review of dated April 2011, but the Petitioner is 
not listed as a cast member. Another New York Times article (December 2016), entitled 
recommends "four immersive productions" in New York for New 
Year's Eve, including This second article does not mention the Petitioner or her 
performance in that production. While the aforementioned articles briefly identify 
as a British site-specific theater company, their limited discussion of that company is 
not sufficient to demonstrate that it has a distinguished reputation in the theatre industry. 
Furthermore, Artistic Director for states that he welcomed the Petitioner 
"as a Company Member of the moment I saw her audition." lists the 
Petitioner's acting credits for other theatre companies and two television programs, but does not 
explain how her role as a member of was leading or critical for his company. In 
addition, the Petitioner provides promotional material from but this documentation is 
insufficient to establish that the company has a distinguished reputation. 
With regard to the Petitioner's role for the company's 
founder and chief executive officer, states that the Petitioner "served in a leading or critical role for 
by starring in several of our short films, among them 
adds that the Petitioner's "leadership and technical 
mastery significantly elevated the quality of each of these productions, and her interpretation of the 
material was thought-provoking and thoroughly original." The Petitioner, however, has not shown 
how her acting role in these productions demonstrates a leading or critical role for the overall 
production company. Additionally, she submits information about from its 
website, but this evidence is not sufficient to establish that the production company has earned a 
distinguished reputation. 
Finally, while the record demonstrates that the Petitioner has performed script read-throughs for 
television series, the evidence does not demonstrate that this role was leading 
or critical for an organization or establishment. Casting Director for 
indicates that she "hired [the Petitioner] to read for 
auditions and script read-throughs with the cast." In addition, actor . an Emmy and 
Tony Award-winning actor and cast member, states that he "first came to know [the 
Petitioner] through to which she frequently contributes as an actor for our table reads 
with the cast, including my co-star . . . [The Petitioner] always delivers effortlessly 
powerful performances that heighten the overall quality of the table read." The Petitioner has not 
specifically identified an organization or establishment for which her role should be 
evaluated. Moreover, although her recommendation letters from and 
praised her talents, they did not contain detailed and probative information that specifically 
addressed how her role was leading or critical.9 The letters, for instance, do not demonstrate how 
this role was leading compared to the other roles on the television show such as its principal actors 
and casting director, nor do they show that she was responsible for ___ high ratings or was 
9 See USC IS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at I 0. 
n 
.
Matter of M-1-
otherwise credited for the success of the series or for an overall organization. For the above reasons, 
the Petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
B. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Petitioner received 0-1 status , a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USC IS has approved at least one 0-1 
nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude 
USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard -
statute, regulations, and case law. Many Form 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS 
approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting. Inc. v. !NS. 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 
(D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (O.O.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co .. 
Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Furthermore, our authority over the USCIS service centers, the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant 
visa petition, is comparable to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even 
if a service center director has approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an individual , we are 
not bound to follow that finding in the adjudication of another immigration petition. Louisiana 
Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D . La. 2000). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of 
final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless , we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that 
the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
In the appeal brief, the Petitioner contends that her performances in and 
at the demonstrate the prominence of her work and her acclaim in 
the field. She provides an August 2013 article in the New York Times stating that the 
"fields about 850 applications a year and has always winnowed them by jury.'· This 
article notes that in 2013 the festival included "a diverse mix of 185 shows' ' in "spaces scattered across 
at the A quote in the article from the 
producing artistic director indicated that her festival adjudicators "will decline someone who doesn 't 
need this opportunity. There are a lot of recognizable names that have come across my desk, and it's 
certainly not that the work wasn't good, but if you have opportunity elsewhere, then you probably don't 
need one of our slots." Without extensive evidence recognizing the Petitioner's achievements 
distinguishing her stage performances from others in her field, she has not shown that she has risen to 
the very top of the field. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification , intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields , rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long 
held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the 
9 
Matter of M-1-
"extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 l&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm 'r. 1994). 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance and recognition of her work are indicative of 
the required sustained national or international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of 
acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990); see also section 203(b )(I )(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise 
demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and she is 
one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that she qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofM-1-, ID# 1823447 (AAO Dec. 19, 2018) 
10