dismissed EB-1A Case: Acting

icfe?~,i?,r;i.,p d.?fa rl,fqtTd 
 U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
A 
 U S Cltlzenshlp and Immlgrat~on Servlces 
prevcn-,. , -,tf: , :i.x, .. -1 1~1)~ 
*' 
 Office ofAdmrnzstratrve Appeals MS 2090 
invasim ~ot‘:,;:: ~~21 pr; v;c:, 
 Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: JW 2 9 20[19 
SRC 07 800 2665 1 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned 
to the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to 
have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.5 for the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided 
your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
5 103S(a)(l)(i). 
,q~& 
['John . rissom 
T - 
b 
 Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Texas Service Center. The petition is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on 
appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. The director determined the petitioner had not 
established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. - Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified 
immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) 
through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. - An alien is described in this 
subparagraph 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 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the legacy Immigration and 
Naturalization Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very 
high standard for individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 
Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary 
ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(2). The specific 
requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or 
international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, 
however, that the petitioner must show that he has sustained national or international acclaim at 
the very top level. 
This petition, filed on July 31, 2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as an actor. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien 
can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
Page 3 
achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of 
such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for an 
alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. A 
petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by submitting 
evidence that simply relates to at least three of the criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3). In 
determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be 
evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory 
definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(2). 
The petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the following criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3).' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awardsfor excellence in the field of endeavor. 
In a December 22, 2006 letter, the Royal Nepal Academy certified that the petitioner received 
the best character actor award in 1988 for his role in Bibasta KO Bhumari Bhitra. A December 
19, 2006 letter from Radio Nepal certified that the petitioner "participated in the 'Samanantar' a 
radio drama that was awarded the FIRST position in a Competitive Radio Drama Festival in the 
year 1992." The petitioner submitted no other documentation regarding these awards. 
In a request for evidence (WE) dated December 31, 2007, the director requested additional 
documentation from the petitioner to establish that the awards were nationally or internationally 
renowned. In response, the petitioner submitted additional letters from the Royal Nepal Academy 
and Radio Nepal, again confirming his receipt of these awards. He also submitted a January 21, 
2008 letter from who identified himself as the proprietor of RP Entertainment 
LLC in Cockyesville, Maryland and who stated that "we also know that [the petitioner] was 
awarded by the theater and Radio for his best performances in Nepal." The petitioner submitted 
no other documentation of the awards that he received from the Royal Nepal Academy or Radio 
Nepal or that these awards are nationally or internationally recognized as awards of excellence in 
the petitioner's field. 
In his February 7, 2008 letter accompanying the petitioner's response to the RFE, prior counsel2 
asserted that the regulation does not require that awards received under this criterion be "major 
national awards. Clearly [the petitioner] has received awards that are nationwide." Counsel also 
asserts on appeal that the petitioner received "nationwide" awards," and that since Radio Nepal 
I 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
2 
 The petitioner was represented by different counsel, who will be referred to as prior counsel, during the 
initial stages of this proceeding. 
is owned by the Nepalese government, the petitioner's award from Radio Nepal is "an award 
from the Government of Nepal therefore A National Award." 
Counsels' arguments are without merit. The requirement of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(i) provides that, to meet this criterion, the petitioner must show that he has 
received an award that is nationally or internationally recognized as an award of excellence in 
the petitioner's field. An award that is given to an individual selected from a nationwide pool 
does not necessarily impart national significance to that award. The petitioner submitted no 
documentation, such as expansive media coverage or similar documentation, that would establish 
that awards granted by the Royal Nepal Academy or Radio Nepal are nationally or 
internationally recognized as awards of excellence in the petitioner's field. 
Furthermore, the documentation submitted indicates that the petitioner received these awards in 
1988 and 1992. Two awards received more than 15 years prior to the filing of the visa petition is 
not consistent with the requirement of section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act that the petitioner must 
establish sustained acclaim. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classzfication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or$elds. 
To demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the petitioner must show 
that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, 
minimum education or work experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, 
recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of dues do not satisfy this 
criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. The overall prestige 
of a given association is not determinative. The issue is membership requirements rather than the 
association's overall reputation. 
In his August 16, 2007 letter, prior counsel stated that the petitioner was "a life member of Film 
Artistes Association of Nepal (FFAN)." Prior counsel asserted that the petitioner had "received 
letters from numerous other national organizations from TV and cinema attesting to his work, 
and his stature as an artist in Nepal." Prior counsel also asserted that although "these 
organizations [do] not necessarily require outstanding achievement to become a member, the 
very fact that these organization have written letters in support of [the petitioner] evidences his 
achievements . . . over the past 20 years." The petitioner submitted a copy of an April 16, 2007 
letter from the chairman of the FFAN certifying that the petitioner was a life member of the 
association. The petitioner provided no documentation regarding the membership requirements 
of the organization. Further, he provided no documentation that he was a member of any other 
organization that wrote letters of reference on his behalf. 
In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner submitted information taken from the website of 
the FFAN. A list of names that appeared on the website, which apparently is a partial list of 
Page 5 
members, shows the petitioner at number 50. The information provided does not include any 
information about th; membership requirements of the organization. On appeal, the petitioner 
submits a copy of this membership card in the FFAN indicating that he is a life member. He also 
submits a copy of a March 27, 2008 letter from the chairman of FFAN,- 
who states that to become a "life member" of the association, one must have played at least four 
-. 
cinemas, must have a "contribution in the same field for many years in the societ 
 and must 
have been a general member for a "few years." The criteria as outlined b 
 do not 
establish that the FFAN requires outstanding achievement of its regular members or of its life 
members. 
On appeal, counsel repeats the argument of prior counsel that letters of reference submitted on 
the petitioner's behalf is evidence of this criterion. However, the petitioner submitted no 
documentation that he was a member of any of the other organizations. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that he 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 classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
In order to meet this criterion, published material must be primarily about the petitioner and be 
printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify as major 
media, the publication should have significant national distribution and be published in a 
predominant language. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a 
particular locality but would qualify as major media because of a significant national 
distribution. 
The petitioner submitted copies of several newspaper articles that purportedly appeared in 
Katmandu Today, Gantabya Nepal, Rajdhani, Nepal Samacharpartra Daily and Gorkhapatra 
Daily. The translations accompanying the articles do not identify the translator and are not 
accompanied by certifications that the translations are complete and accurate and that the 
translator is competent to translate from Nepalese into English. We note that the translations are 
signed and dated but there is no evidence that the individual signing the documents is the 
translator. 
The documents therefore do not comply with the terms of 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(3), which 
provides: 
Translations. Any document containing foreign language submitted to [USCIS] 
shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator 
has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he 
or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 
Page 6 
Because the petitioner failed to submit certified translations of the documents, the AAO cannot 
determine whether the evidence supports the petitioner's claims. Furthermore, the translated 
documents do not include the author of the articles, as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Accordingly, the evidence is not probative and will not be accorded any 
weight in this proceeding. 
The petitioner also submitted information about himself taken from the online encyclopedia 
Wikipedia and his own website. With regard to information from Wikipedia, there are no 
assurances about the reliability of the content from this open, user-edited internet site.3 See 
Lamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8'" Cir. 2008). Additionally, the 
information provided by the petitioner on his own website is not consistent with the underlying 
purpose of this criterion which is to demonstrate that major media distributors consider the alien 
and his work worthy of coverage. Information included in one's own website does not carry the 
evidentiary weight of independent journalistic coverage in major media. 
The petitioner submitted pages from the website of NapaliBhaka.com, listing photos of Nepali 
actors, including the petitioner. As this criterion specifically requires an author, title, and any 
necessary translation, the publication of photographs do not qualifl the petitioner under this 
criterion. The petitioner also submitted a page from the website nepalfilmart.blog.com profiling 
film artists of Nepal, including the petitioner. This document also does not qualify the petitioner 
under this criterion as it does not include a date or an author. Further, the petitioner submitted no 
documentation to establish that any of these publications or websites constitutes a major trade 
publication or other major media. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an alliedjield of speczjication for which classzjication is 
sought. 
3 
 Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open-content 
collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to 
develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone 
with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has 
necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, 
accurate or reliable information. . . . Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information 
found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or 
altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the 
relevant fields. 
See http://en.wikipedia.ora/wiki/Wikipedia:GeneraI disclaimer, accessed on June 17, 2009, a copy of 
which is incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
Page 7 
The petitioner submitted a copy of an invitation from the Bishwa Bhasha Campus of Tribhuvan 
University inviting the petitioner to "act the role of the judge in the program of Internal Children 
theatre program" to be performed on December 5, 2005. We note that the translation 
accompanying the document does not comply with the provisions of 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3) in 
that the translator did not certify that the translation was complete and accurate or that he or she 
was competent to translate from Nepalese into English. The petitioner also submitted a 
photograph that he identifies as his presence at the program and judging the program. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of extraordinary 
ability must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 
Evidence of the petitioner's participation as a judge must be evaluated in terms of these 
requirements. The weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(iv), therefore, depends on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, 
or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field 
of endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition 
of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 5 
204.5(h)(2). For example, judging top competitors at a national is of far greater probative value 
than evaluating the work of amateurs at a local level. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires "[elvidence of the alien's participation . . . 
as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification." We cannot conclude 
that evaluating students, who have not yet begun working in the field, meets this requirement. 
Further, the record includes no supporting evidence establishing the level of acclaim associated 
with judging this student contest. The evidence does not establish that the petitioner's single act 
as a judge of this theatre program or of the children's program at Tribhuvan University is 
indicative of the acclaim required by this highly restrictive classification. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientlJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signzjicance in the field. 
The petitioner claims to meet this criterion; however, he does not specify which of his 
contributions are of major significance to his field. The petitioner submitted copies of compact 
and digital video discs of his appearances in movies and on TV shows. He also submitted 
several letters of reference from individuals who attest that he is a "nationally acclaimed actor." 
With regard to the petitioner's achievements as an actor, the letters of recommendation do not 
specify exactly what the petitioner's original artistic contributions have been, nor is there an 
explanation indicating how any such contributions were of major significance in his field. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not 
only original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is 
not superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. While the petitioner's acting has earned the 
admiration of those with whom he has worked, there is nothing to demonstrate that he has had 
Page 8 
major significance in the field at large. For example, the record does not indicate the extent of 
the petitioner's influence on other actors nationally or internationally, nor does it show that the 
field has somehow changed as a result of his work. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The petitioner claims to meet this criterion based on his appearance in "numerous film and TV 
shows in Nepal." 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vii) reveals that this criterion applies 
to the visual arts. The beneficiary is a performing artist. A general movie, television or theatrical 
performance is not an exhibition or showcase of a particular artist's work. It is inherent to the field 
of performing arts to perform. Not every production, however, is a showcase or exhibition of the 
work of every performer. The petitioner has not shown that his performances in his various roles 
showcase his particular performance and not those of every other member of the cast. As the 
petitioner's performances as an artist are more relevant to the "commercial successes in the 
performing arts" criterion at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3)(x), they have been discussed separately within 
the context of that criterion. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the$eld. 
In his August 16, 2007 letter, prior counsel stated that a letter from K.K.D. Films, signed by its 
managing director, attested that the petitioner earned a salary of 100,000 
Nepalese rupees for a single performance. Counsel asserted that the U.S. State Department 
indicates that per capita income for Nepal is 20,640 rupees, and that the petitioner earned four to 
five times the annual salary of the average Nepalese citizen. Prior counsel repeats this argument 
in response to the director's RFE and counsel repeats it on appeal. 
However, the record does not contain the referenced letter from K.K.D. Films or report from the 
State Department. Furthermore, the petitioner must establish that his salary or other remuneration 
is high relative to others in his field. A comparison of compensation to others in unrelated 
activities or to the per capita income generally in Nepal does not satisfy the requirements of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
On appeal, the etitioner submits copies of three letters from Gauriputra Films Pvt. Ltd. In a June 
28, 2007 letter who identified himself as the director, stated that in December 
2007, the company agreed to ay the petitioner 95,000 rupees for a role. A January 14, 2008 
letter signed by -, as directoriproducer, verified that the petitioner 
400,000 rupees for a role in a commercial. A March 24, 2008 letter also signed by 
Page 9 
indicates that the petitioner's claim of earning 100,000 rupees is the minimum that actors 
would make before "rewards," which could increase their compensation by 300%. 
Nonetheless, the petitioner has not provided any documentation of any salaries or compensation 
of others within his field of endeavor. Therefore, he has provided no documentation by which to 
establish that his compensation is high compared to other actors. Further, the pay received by the 
petitioner in December 2007 is not evidence that the petitioner meets this criterion. The petition 
was filed on July 3 1, 2007. A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition 
cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a 
new set of facts. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 
1971). 
The petitioner has failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box ofice receipts 
or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
Although the petitioner claims to meet this criterion, he submitted no box office receipts, video 
sales or other documentation to establish eligibility under this criterion. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
The petitioner submitted several letters of recommendation from individuals who attest to his 
acting skills and his renown as an actor in Nepal. First Secretary of the 
Embassy of Nepal, stated in an April 4, 2008 letter that the petitioner's "contribution to the 
performing artsis exemplary." 
 the chairman of the FFAN states in a January 
24, 2008 letter that the petitioner's "acting and dialogues are still been [sic] practiced by the 
young stars." In a March 24, 2008 letter, the production officer for Indreni Film 
production stated that the petitioner is "[nlot only the best actor but also the multitalented 
personality in our industry." 
The ten regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) reflect the statutory demand for "extensive 
documentation" in section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. Opinions from witnesses whom the 
petitioner has selected do not represent extensive documentation. Independent evidence that 
already existed prior to the preparation of the visa petition package carries greater weight than 
new materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly 
demonstrate that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of 
the small percentage who has risen to the very top of his field of endeavor. Review of the record, 
however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent that he 
may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small 
percentage at the very top of his field. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility 
pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
+ Page 10 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.