dismissed EB-1A Case: Acting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5755266 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : NOV. 21, 2019 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an actor, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that she meets any of the ten initial evidentiary criteria , of which she must meet at least 
three. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) 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 
(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 pet1t10ner 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). 
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) 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is an actress who has performed in film, television, commercials, and other projects in 
Israel and the United States. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she 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 determined that the Petitioner did 
not meet any of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts that she submitted evidence to satisfy five criteria, discussed below. After reviewing all of the 
evidence in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not satisfied the requirements of at least 
three criteria. 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which class[fication 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 Petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on her submission of 15 exhibits from various 
sources including blogs, social media, a festival program, and several websites, specifically relating 
to the films I I l I and I 11 She states that this evidence establishes 
that her achievements have been "extensively recognized in Israel and the international arena." In 
order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate published material about her in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media, as well as the title, date, and author of 
the material. 2 The submitted evidence does not meet these criteria. 
1 The Petitioner also submitted a table which lists all roles she has held during her acting career, with a "link to information" 
about each project. However, she did not provide copies of the referenced published materials for the record and therefore 
did not meet her burden to establish that any of the linked articles, videos and other sources satisfy this criterion. 
2 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 7 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
2 
The Petitioner submitted screenshots of reviews of '---------~ from the blogs 
mictoday.wordpress.com, tarboot.wordpress.com, and naimeod.com (with only partial English 
translations) but did not establish that these blogs constitute professional or major trade publications 
or other major media. 3 For example, the Petitioner states thau I who wrote the review appearing 
on tarboot.wordpress.com is "an established film critic and author," but she neither states nor provides 
evidence demonstrating that this blog qualifies as a major medium. 
Further, these reviews are not about the Petitioner and her work. The Tview Josted on the "Mictoday" 
blog identifies the Petitioner as the actress who played the character in the film but does not 
otherwise mention her. Similarly, the only reference to the Petitioner in the submitted review from 
!Is blog is the appearance of her name in the cast list for the film. Another review ofl I 
c===] from the website fisheye.co.il ( described as a "movie critic website") mentions only that 
the critic (whose name is not identified) sat next to the Petitioner in the movie theater while screening 
the film for her review. The Petitioner also provided a partial copy of an interview with the film's 
writer by the website Film Buzz (filmbuzz.tv). The Petitioner appears in a still from the movie that 
accompanied the article, and her name is tagged, but the submitted material does not include the full 
text of the interview and her name is not mentioned elsewhere. Articles that are not about a petitioner 
do not fulfill this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *l, 
*7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles regarding a show are not about the actor). 
The record contains a screenshot from the blog "The Book of Life" (iewishbooks.blogspot.com), 
which provides a synopsis and still from I I and indicates that there is a podcast of a 
Skype interview the blog author conducted with the Petitioner along with the film's male lead, 
screenwriter, and a production manager. The Petitioner did not submit a transcript of the interview and 
the blog post only mentions that the Petitioner appeared in the film. The Petitioner's evidence also 
includes screenshots of Facebook posts from the director ofl I and posts from the general 
Facebook page ofl !which mention her and her work in these films, along with another blog 
post from naimmeod.com which includes one sentence regarding the Petitioner's work in the latter 
film. Again, the record does not contain evidence that these Facebook posts or a blog entry satisfy the 
requirement that the Petitioner submit published materials from professional or major trade publication 
or other major media. 
In addition to the articles from blogs and Facebook posts, the Petitioner provided evidence that a 
capsule review of I I which congratulates the Petitioner and other actors in the film, 
appeared on the website tapuz.co.il. The Petitioner describes the website as "a major website in 
Israel." Similarly, the Petitioner submitted an article titled I I I t from ynet.co.il, which is described as "one of the most known news sites in Israel." The article 
states that the film's production company -.__ _______ ___, - has a new Internet funding 
campaign for I I and mentions that the Petitioner had been cast in the film. However, these 
articles are not about the Petitioner, the submitted material does not identify the authors, the articles 
do not appear to be fully translated, and they are not accompanied by evidence that supports the 
Petitioner's claim that either source (tapiz.co.il or ynet.co.il) constitutes major media. 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7 (indicating that evidence of published material in 
professional or major trade publications or in other major media publications should establish that the circulation ( on-line 
or in print) is high compared to other circulation statistics). 
3 
Finally, the Petitioner submitted several miscellaneous items, including screenshots from IMDb.com, 
a photograph of a film festival program that includes a brief synopsis o~ I a news or 
blog entry on the web site ofl I which announced her casting in that film, and a 
notice published on the Lehsite~evevent com which merioned her participation in an October 2014 
panel discussion titled '~-----------' held by an unidentified organizer. All of 
these documents are lacking in one or more elements required to satisfy this criterion and do not 
qualify as published material about the Petitioner and her work in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media, nor do they include all elements of the author, title or date. 
Because the Petitioner did not establish that her evidence meets the regulatory requirements, she did 
not demonstrate that she satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner contends that it is "obvious" that she has made original artistic contributions, including 
"essential contributions to the international film, television, and even the theatrical entertainment 
industries" and "in each of her artistic works." In order to meet the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only has she made original contributions but that 
they have been of major significance in the field.4 For example, a petitioner may show that the 
contributions have been widely implemented throughout the field, have remarkably impacted or 
influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major significance in the field. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner provided twelve recommendation letters, which confirmed her 
participation in film projects and actin workshops and praised her talents, abilities, professionalism, 
and character. 5 For instance states that she "has an extraordinary ability to transform 
emotions" and acting coach.__ ____ ___.notes her "extreme talent and truthful acting," stating that 
"she is a great actress" who "can work in this industry." I I ofl lacting studio, states 
that he has worked with the Petitioner in several productions and expresses his appreciation for her 
"deep understanding of human behavior, also her well-trained technique," calling her "one of our 
brightest and most innovative young actors." Actorl ldescribes the Petitioner as "one of 
the most outstanding talents I have met in the past two years," and praises her performance inl I I I noting that the film required dramatic and comic skills alon with the hysical ability to 
perform a fight scene, and also notes her "intellect and confidence." the director and 
founder ofl I recalls the Petitioner's audition for.......,_,---,----.,..,....--,--, noting that 
"[ e ]very single person in the room was amazed by her sincere acting, and by how easily she can switch 
her emotional state." He indicates that his studio wrote a lead role in its latest project,! I 
specifically for her. I I screenwriter and director ofi ,I states that the Petitioner's 
physical and mental transformation for her role in the film was "incredible" and describes her role as 
"one of the strongest in [the] film." 
4 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra. at 8-9 (finding that although funded and published work may 
be "original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of major significance). 
5 Although we do not discuss every letter submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one in determining whether 
the submitted evidence satisfies this criterion. 
4 
However, having a diverse, unique, or special skill set as an actor is not a contribution of major 
significance in-and-of-itself. The record must be supported by evidence that the Petitioner has already 
used those skills and talents to impact the field at a significant level, which she has not shown. Here, 
the Petitioner's letters do not contain specific, detailed information identifying her original 
contributions and explaining the unusual influence her work has had on the overall field. Letters that 
specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field and its 
impact on subsequent work add value. 6 Here, the letters do not demonstrate the Petitioner's impact 
beyond the projects in which she performed or participated. 7 
The Petitioner also relies on the above-referenced published materials in support of this criterion. 
However, as discussed, the materials submitted, to the extent that they mention the Petitioner and her 
work, do so only in passing and do not demonstrate how she has made original artistic contributions 
of major significance to her field as a whole. 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that she has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence of the display of the individual's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) 
The Petitioner stategthis criterion based on evidence that her films (including II 
I IJ I andl ~~played atl IE,xpo Festival,t===j 
LJ Film Festival, Film Festival, l__JFilm Festival, andl !Competition. 
However, the Director found that she did not submit "the appropriate evidence." 
We note that, in a cover letter that accompanied her response to a request for evidence (RFE), the 
Petitioner indicated that exhibits "p" through "s" related to this criterion and included evidence of the 
above-referenced festival screenings. However, the materials submitted with the RFE response were 
labeled "a" through "o" and did not include the referenced exhibits. 
The Petitioner's exhibit "f'' includes a partially-illegible phTograph If a listing of films, including 
~------~ with screen times, along with the caption' Expo Festival! l" While 
it appears to be a photograph of a publication, the date and source of this photograph are not identified. 
The Petitioner also provird a cofiy of a photograph that appears to show her holding an item on which 
her name and the words ' Expo Panelist" are printed. This evidence, without an official listing 
~ festival or other documentation, is insufficient to establish that her film was screened at the 
~Expo Festival. Accordingly, we find that the Petitioner has not met this criterion. 
Evidence that the individual has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
6 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
7 Id.; see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134-35 (D.D.C. 2013) (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer 
had not met this criterion because she did not conoborate her impact in the field as a whole). 
5 
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. 8 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. In addition, this criterion requires that the organizations or establishments must be 
recognized as having a distinguished reputation, which is marked by eminence, distinction, or 
excellence. 9 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that "the acting profession is extremely competitive" with many actors 
"never achieving critical acclaim or international or even national exposure." The Petitioner 
emphasizes that she "has performed in major roles in film, television and theatre as well as in 
commercials for big name products." In support of her claim, the Petitioner references a table which 
she lists all of her acting credits and the published materials regarding the films I I I land I I She also references exhibits relating to the festivals in which her films have 
been screened, which as discussed, are not part of the record. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires the Petitioner's leading or critical role(s) to be 
for "organizations or establishments." Here, while the Petitioner has had lead roles in several projects, 
she did not demonstrate how the films, television programs, plays, or commercials in which she has 
appeared qualify as organizations or establishments consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
Therefore, the list of the Petitioner's acting credits, and articles that mention these roles, is not 
sufficient to meet this criterion. 
We have also reviewed testimonial evidence in evaluatiuo w~,,ther the Petitioner meets this criterion, 
soecificaJlv the letter froml I ofJ J which produced I land 
~----11 I confirms that the Petitioner held lead roles in these films, and states that his 
company "would be happy to work with [the Petitioner] again." However, his statement does not offer 
detailed and probative information that specifically addresses how the Petitioner's role for this 
production company was leading or critical. For instance, the letters did not describe the hierarchy of 
the company and explain where the Petitioner's position fit in its overall structure. Moreover, whileD 
Dpraises the Petitioner's performances in these films, he does not address how those performances 
contributed to the success or standing of his company, such that she could be considered to have 
performed in a critical role for the organization. Finally, the record does not contain evidence 
establishing that~------~is recognized as having a distinguished reputation. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not show that she satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence that the individual has commanded a high salary or other sign[ficantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
To establish eligibility under this criterion, the Petitioner must present evidence showing that she has 
earned a high salary or significantly high remuneration in comparison with those performing similar 
8 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
9 Id at 10-11. 
6 
services in the field. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering 
a professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also Skokos v. US. Dept. of 
Homeland Sec., 420 F. App'x 712, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding salary information for those 
performing lesser duties is not a comparison to others in the field); Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 
968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 
891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N. D. Ill. 1995) (comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of 
other NHL defensemen). 
The Petitioner" s initial evidence included: (I) a memorandum between the Petitioner anb I 
confirming the terms and conditions of the her ro osed services for a web series titled and (2) 
a deal memo between the Petitioner and indicating the terms 
for her services with respect to the film projec .__ __ __, The agreement withl l indicates 
she would receive $200 per day, while the agreement wit~ I indicates a $2,000 per 
week fee. However, the Petitioner did not provide any documentation corroborating her past earnings, 
such as pay stubs or tax documentation, nor did she submit published salary data that could serve as a 
basis of comparison between her earnings and those of other actors performing similar services. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that "according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the 
national mean hourly wage for actors ... is $32.89 per hour." The Petitioner indicated that she was 
submitting three additional exhibits ("aa, u and v") that included USDOL Online Wage Library results 
for SOC Code 27-2011 Actors, and evidence that she commanded $212.50 per hour for her work on a 
commercial fofLJ and $200 per hour for her work with 'i I" 
However, as noted above, the exhibits attached to the Petitioner's RFE response included those labeled 
letters "a" through "o" only; the exhibits referenced above were not provided for the record. 
The record does not contain sufficient evidence of the actual salary or other remuneration that the 
Petitioner has commanded for her services. Nor does it include evidence of comparative salary data 
for individuals with the Beneficiary's level of expertise and experience, and performing similar 
services in the field. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she meets this criterion. 
B. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
In addition, we note that the record reflects that the Beneficiary received 0-1 status, a classification 
reserved for nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 
nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary, 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 I-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USC IS 
approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 
(D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., 
Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 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). 
7 
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. 
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 "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of her work is 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 )(l)(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 reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8