dismissed EB-1A Case: Acting

(b)(6)
Date: ·APR 0 2 2014 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative App eals 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
APPLICATION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(1 )(A). 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
~Yf-
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the arts, specifically as an 
actor, pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A). 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. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation " of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish 
the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the evidence of the petitioner's achievements establishes him as an alien 
of extraordinary ability. Counsel contends that the director's interpretation and application of the 
relevant statutes and regulations was inappropriately stringent. 
I. LAW 
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 into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101
51 
Cong. , 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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. !d.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
On appeal, counsel relies on two district court decisions for the general premises that the extraordinary 
ability classification does not require "superstar " status and that users should not apply too stringent a 
standard. See Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 446 (N.D. TIL 1995); Buletini v. INS, 869 F. Supp. 1222 
(E.D Mich. 1994). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the 
court upheld the AAO 's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the 
AAO 's evaluation of 
evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.
1 
With respect to the criteria at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while users may have raised legitimate concerns 
about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have 
been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." !d. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." !d. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter , the AAO will review the evidence under 
the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. The cases counsel cites on appeal are consistent 
with this approach. See Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. at 445-46 (holding in a separate totality of the 
evidence section that the satisfaction of the three-category production requirement does not mandate a 
finding that the petitioner is eligible); Buletini, 860 F. Supp. at 1234 (holding that meeting three 
criteria is sufficient to establish eligibility unless the agency sets forth specific and substantiated 
reasons otherwise). 
1 
Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The director determined that the petitioner's enrollment and subsequent graduation from 
does not meet the requirements of this criterion. A school of the arts is an institution for 
training and educating artists, not an association comprised of members. Head of the 
Theater Faculty of attests to the selectivity for gaining admission into and 
for graduating from the school: 
There are hundreds of actors who participate in our auditions yearly, striving to be 
accepted. The auditions are taking place in 3 rounds for 2 weeks. Out of hundreds we 
only accept a select few (maximum of 15) to be part of the acting education. 
The Faculty's program is a 4 year course and at the end of the first year the selected 
students are being evaluated again to see who is capable to continue for the next 3 years. 
At the end of the 41h year, the student is evaluated by the board of the Faculty and an 
industry professional before being able to graduate. ' 
The admission process, although stringent, relies upon auditions to assess potential talent and does not 
consider outstanding achievement in the petitioner's field as a criterion for selection. Upon graduation 
from the program, issues a certificate which affirms the petitioner's successful 
completion of the school's educational curriculum and does not confer a separate membership to 
graduates. Admission to and graduation from a school, even a competitive one, is not a qualifying 
membership. See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1221 (citing Love Korean Church v. Chertoff, 549 F.3d 749, 
758 (9th Cir. 2008) for the proposition that USCIS may not unilaterally impose novel substantive or 
evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5). Notably, a degree is a criterion 
for aliens of exceptional · ability, a lesser classification pursuant to section 203(b )(2) of the Act, which 
also includes a separate criterion for memberships. Compare 8 C.P.R. § 204.6(k)(3)(ii)(A); (E). 
Furthermore, as the director concluded, the record does not include sufficient evidence establishing that 
the members of the faculty who select the students for admission and approve them for graduation are 
nationally or internationally recognized experts in the field. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not met the plain language requirements of 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
2 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence 
not discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
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. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The director determined that the petitioner's evidence did not establish that he met this criterion. The 
director considered and mentioned the following published material in making his determination: 
(1) a printout from Wildpedia discussing ' 
(2) a review of "' 
(3) a review of' ~ ________ _ 
(4) an article titled,' . - ·-- · ~..--­
(5) an article discussing the film, " 
Items (1)-(4) and (6)-(7) from the above list are in Dutch. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) 
states: "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." Items (1)-(4) and (6)-(7) required translations and needed to comply with the requirements 
at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3). While not addressed by the director in his decision, the petitioner 
submitted translations that do not comport with the regulation. The translations are not accompanied 
by a translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from Dutch to English. Because 
these translations do not comply with 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), they have no probative value and the 
petitioner cannot establish the evidentiary requirements as required by the regulation. 
In addition to the translation deficiency, with respect to the information from Wikipedia, there are no 
assurances about the reliability of the content from this open, user-edited internet site? See Lamilem 
Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (81h Cir. 2008). As for the remaining items referenced in 
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 corre spond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. 
See h.UP-.J.krr~~ ikip e d if! : org/ wi ki/Wikipedia:General disclaimer , accessed on March 31, 2014, a copy of which 
is incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
the previous paragraph, the director properly determined that the record does not establish that the 
publications are professional or major trade publications, or other major media. 
Item ( 4) in the list is an article that appears in the because it is a 
publication with a national readership, constitutes major media. However, a review of the article 
reveals that the article is about The article does not discuss 
or mention the petitioner by name in the article. Counsel highlights that the petitioner was in one of 
the video that the article mentions, but the article does not mention the petitioner and, as such, is not 
about the petitioner. Similarly, the remaining articles the petitioner submitted are not about him. 
Rather, as counsel states on appeal, the petitioner's achievements include "being mentioned" in 
published material. The 
plain language at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), however, requires that the 
material be "about" the petitioner and the regulation does not state that material that mentions the 
petitioner is sufficient. Articles that are not about the petitioner do not meet this regulatory criterion. 
See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) 
(upholding a finding that articles about a show are not about the actor). 
For all of the foregoing reasons, the petitioner did not meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The director determined that the petitioner did not establish his eligibility for this criterion. Along with 
the Form 1-140 application, the petitioner initially submitted for consideration letters from the following 
individuals: (1 
While the above group of letters praise the petitioner' s talents as an actor and discuss specific 
productions and projects, they do not articulate how the petitioner made significant contributions that 
impacted the field as a whole. For example, · · writes: 
In The Netherlands, [the petitioner] is revered as arguably one of the top actors in the 
country and he was often tapped to perform in the most challenging and heralded 
projects available. It was both a pleasure and a[n] honor for me to work with this 
outstanding, professional, kind actor and I hope to work with him again. 
The petitioner's talent and educational credentials as an actor are not in dispute. However, the letters 
generally praise the petitioner and do not discuss how the petitioner has impacted the field as a whole. 
solicited letters from local colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
provide specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian 
v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (91h Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010).4 
The petitioner submitted additional support letters in response to the director's Request for Evidence 
(RFE). Along with the RFE response, the evidence included letters from the following individuals: (1) 
-- " !> /-:-., :.- ~ .,. .-• 11 11 / ' / ,o '\. T"""'> • ,, A 1 A 11 , '-..-7"" __ 
- - - - ~ - - - --- 7 - -- - - 7 --- - - ' --/ - - - - --· -~-- --
The letters in the second group either highlight an additional aspect of the petitioner 's talent as an actor 
or describe how the petitioner's involvement with a specific project or production helped make it 
successful. For example, writes: 
In addition to his portfolio of ground breaking performances , there were several other 
reasons for our selection [of the petitioner for the lead role in a film]; firstly, because of 
his great capability to create a believable Iranian student character with a humorous, but 
also deeply emotional power; secondly, because of his unparalleled versatility as a 
performer where he can play huge diversities in different takes[, and] thirdly, because of 
his rare skill to switch between the English language and the languages of the east, an 
ability which was extremely essential for this part. 
discusses the petitioner's versatility in technique and his language skills. 
Regardless of the fact that those attributes would likely help the petitioner be successful in the field, 
they do not constitute significant contributions in the field. 
~ ---
4 
~ ~ - " .., discuss how the petitioner's involvement with 
various television projects made them a success. However, the letters do not provide any information 
on whether or not the television projects had an impact on the field as a whole. See Visinscaia v. Beers, 
--- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2013 WL 6571822, at *6, 8 (D.D.C. Dec. 16, 2013) (upholding a finding that a 
ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not demonstrate her impact in the field as a 
whole). 
Finally, the petitioner specifically requests USCIS to consider his contributions to under this 
, states criterion. In his second letter of support, : - - -· - .. ---------------------------that: 
Indeed [the petitioner] has applied his unique education and his artistic insight to help 
create the technique - an advanced form of movement 
4 
In 2010, the Kazarian. court reiterated that the AAO's conclusion that " letters from physics professors attesting 
to [the alien ' s] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language ." 
596 F.3d at 1122. 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
improvisation that is taking hold globally. He INVENTED this cutting-edge 
performance method, which produces as yet unseen modes of entertainment. It is 
essentially an adaption of animated film logic for the stage with groundbreaking results. 
Because of [the petitioner's] collaboration with me to create ' ____ .. ___ __ ... ," our 
company training was rated in the -not a small feat in this 
town. 
The record includes an article that discusses the " as one of the top 10 
fitness workouts." However, the fitness industry is not the petitioner's claimed field of expertise. In 
response to the director's RFE, the petitioner identified himself as an actor in the performing arts for 
purposes of the Form 1-140 petition. The fitness technique's potential for wide impact in the 
petitioner's field of expertise is insufficient to meet the requirements of this criterion. Furthermore, 
while states that the improvisation method is "taking hold globally," there is no 
substantiating evidence in the record that supports such a claim. USCIS need not rely on an entity's 
own vague claims of prestige. Cf Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C.D. CA July 6, 2007) aff'd 
2009 WL 604888 (91h Cir. 2009) (finding that USCIS need not rely on the promotional material of a 
publisher). As stated above, the article in . ~ suggests that the fitness technique 
is unique to Los Angeles. Thus, there is insufficient documentation to establish that the petitioner 's 
development of a new technique is a significant contribution in the field. 
Accordingly, the petitioner did not establish his eligibility for this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
The director determined in the decision that the petitioner met this regulatory criterion and mentioned 
the names of several plays in which the petitioner played a role. However, the interpretation that 8 
C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) is limited to the visual arts is longstanding and has been upheld by a federal 
district court. See Negro-Plumpe, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *7 (upholding an interpretation that 
performances by a performing artist do not fall under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii)). Acting in plays 
constitutes performance art instead of visual art. As the petitioner is not a visual artist and has not 
created tangible pieces of art that were on display at exhibitions or showcases, the petitioner has not 
submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language requirements of the regulation at 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The director considered the petitioner's evidence regarding the critical role for developing a new 
technique for the petitioner's role in the production of . . and the 
petitioner's contributions to the play . The director concluded that none of the submitted 
evidence established the petitioner's eligibility under this criterion. On appeal, counsel asserts that the 
director was inexplicably dismissive about petitioner's development and creation of the - · -
Animation technique and, as discussed above, requests USCIS to consider this accomplishment as an 
original artistic contribution of major significance if the development of the technique does not satisfy 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
the requirements of 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). A passing reference without substantive arguments is 
insufficient to raise that ground on appeal. Desravines v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 343 Ped.Appx. 433, 435 
(11th Cir. 2009). See also Sepulveda v. US. Att 'y Gen., 401 P.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005), 
citing United Stat es v. Cunningham, 161 P.3d 1343, 1344 (111h Cir. 1998). USCIS, therefore, 
considers this issue to be abandoned. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or record, 
cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 
The petitioner previously submitted evidence under this criterion. The director ' s decision concluded 
that the petitioner did not meet this criterion and the petitioner does not identify any factual or legal 
error relating to this criterion on appeal. Consequently , the petitioner abandoned this claim. See 
Sepulveda v. US Att'y Gen., 401 P.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (111h Cir. 2005), citing United States v. 
Cunningham, 161 P.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 
WL 4711885 at * 1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiff's claims were abandoned as he failed to 
raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to submit sufficient relevant, probative evidence to satisfy the regulatory 
requirement of three types of evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
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 the field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor" and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.P.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian , 596 P.3d at 1119-20. While the AAO concludes that the 
evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top of 
the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need not explain that conclusion in a 
final merits determination. 5 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
5 
The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 P.3d 143, 145 
(3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits 
determination as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See also section 
103(a)(1) of the Act; section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 
8 C.P.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.P.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 1.,--&-N~ Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. Id. at 1122. The petitioner has not established 
eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa 
petitions).