dismissed EB-1A Case: Acting

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve., N.W., Ms 2090
8 Washington,DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
'l
DATE: Office: TEXASSERVICECENTER FILE:
DEC2 1201g
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor AlienWorkerasanAlien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto Section
203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOfficein yourcase. All of thedocuments
relatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional
information that you wish to have considered,you may file a motion to reconsideror a motion to reopenin
accordancewith the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The
specific requirementsfor filing sucha motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion
directly with the AAO. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto befiled within
30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
RonRosenberg
ActingChief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscas.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The Director,TexasServiceCenter,deniedthe employment-basedimmigrantvisa
petition,whichisnowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)onappeal.Theappealwill be
dismissed.
Thepetitionerseeksclassificationasan"alienof extraordinaryability" in thearts,specificallyasan
actress,pursuantto section203(b)(1)(A)of the ImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8 U.S.C.
§ 1153(b)(1)(A).Thedirectordeterminedthepetitionerhadnotestablishedthesustainednationalor
internationalacclaimnecessarytoqualifyfor classificationasanalienof extraordinaryability.
Congresssetaveryhighbenchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryability by requiringthroughthestatute
that the petitionerdemonstratethe alien's"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim"andpresent
"extensivedocumentation"of thealien'sachievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of theAct and
8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).Theimplementingregulationat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)statesthatanaliencan
establishsustainednationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-timeachievementof a
major,internationallyrecognizedaward. Absentthereceiptof suchanaward,theregulationoutlines
tencategoriesof specificobjectiveevidence.8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)through(x). Thepetitionermust
submitqualifyingevidenceunderatleastthreeof thetenregulatorycategoriesof evidenceto establish
thebasiceligibilityrequirements.
Onappeal,counselfor thepetitionerassertsthatthedirectormisappliedtherelevantstandardof proofin
evaluatingthepetitioner.Counselfurtherassertsthatthedirectoroverlookedcriticalinformationthat
that the petitioner submitted,the petitioner met additionalregulatorycriteria than the director
recognizedin hisdecision,andthatthedirectorfailedto considerthetotalityof theevidencein making
thefinalmeritsdetermination.
I. LAW
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart,that:
(1) Priority workers.-- Visas shall first be madeavailable. . . to qualified immigrantswho are
aliensdescribedin anyof thefollowingsubparagraphs(A) through(C):
(A) Alienswith extraordinaryability.-- An alienisdescribedin thissubparagraphif --
(i) the alien has extraordinaryability in the sciences,arts, education,
business,or athleticswhichhasbeendemonstratedby sustainednationalor
internationalacclaimandwhoseachievementshavebeenrecognizedin the
fieldthroughextensivedocumentation,
(ii) thealienseeksto entertheUnitedStatesto continuework in theareaof
extraordinaryability,and
Page3
(iii) the alien's entry into the United Stateswill substantiallybenefit
prospectivelytheUnitedStates.
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)andlegacyImmigrationandNaturalizationService
(INS)haveconsistentlyrecognizedthatCongressintendedto seta very high standardfor individuals
seekingimmigrantvisasasaliensof extraordinaryability. SeeH.R. 723 101"Cong.,2d Sess.59
(1990);56Fed.Reg.60897,60898-99(Nov.29,1991).Theterm"extraordinaryability"refersonlyto
thoseindividualsin thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopof thefieldof endeavor.Id.;
8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2).
Theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)requiresthatthepetitionerdemonstratethealien'ssustained
acclaimandtherecognitionof hisor herachievementsin thefield. Suchacclaimmustbeestablished
eitherthroughevidenceof aone-timeachievement(thatis, amajor,internationalrecognizedaward)or
throughthe submissionof qualifyingevidenceunderat leastthreeof the ten categoriesof evidence
listedat8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).
In2010,theU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheNinthCircuit(NinthCircuit)reviewedthedenialof apetition
filed underthisclassification.Kazarianv. USCIS,596F.3d1115(9thCir.2010).Althoughthecourt
upheldthe AAO's decisionto denythe petition,the courttook issuewith the AAO's evaluationof
evidencesubmittedto meeta givenevidentiarycriterion.1With respectto thecriteriaat 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(vi), thecourtconcludedthatwhileUSCISmayhaveraisedlegitimateconcerns
aboutthesignificanceof theevidencesubmittedto meetthosetwo criteria,thoseconcernsshouldhave
beenraisedin asubsequent"finalmeritsdetermination."Id. at1121-22.
ThecourtstatedthattheAAO's evaluationrestedon animproperunderstandingof theregulations.
Insteadof parsingthe significanceof evidenceaspartof the initial inquiry,the courtstatedthat"the
properprocedureisto countthetypesof evidenceprovided(whichtheAAO did)," andif thepetitioner
failedto submitsufficientevidence,"theproperconclusionis thattheapplicanthasfailedto satisfythe
regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence(asthe AAO concluded)."Id. at 1122(citing to
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)).
Thus,Kazarian setsforth a two-partapproachwherethe evidenceis first countedandthenconsidered
in thecontextof afinal meritsdetermination.In thismatter,theAAO will reviewtheevidenceunder
theplainlanguagerequirementsof eachcriterionclaimed. As thepetitionerdid not submitqualifying
evidenceunderatleastthreecriteria,theproperconclusionis thatthepetitionerhasfailedto satisfythe
regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.Id.
Specifically,the court statedthat the AAO had unilaterallyimposednovel substantiveor evidentiary
requirementsbeyondthose set forth in the regulationsat 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Page4
II. ANALYSIS
A. EvidentiaryCriteria2
Documentationof the alien's receiptof lessernationallyor internationallyrecognizedprizesor
awardsfor excellencein thefield ofendeavor.8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i).
The directordeterminedthat thepetitionermet this regulatorycriterion. To establishher eligibility
under8 C.F. .5 th etitionersubmitteddocumentarevidenceto showthatshe:(1)
r herwork in
TheAAO findsthatthetwo nominationsdo notmeettheplainlanguagerequirementsof 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(i).Theregulationonlyspecifiesprizesor awardsanddonotincludemerenominations.
Furthermore,while the petitioner's2003 Alberta Film and TelevisionAward for Best Actress
constitutesan award,thereis insufficientevidencein the recordto establishthatit is a nationallyor
internationallyrecognized,asrequiredby the regulatorylanguage.The recordincludesinformation
from the wesite the sponsoring
organizationfoi However,the webpageonly provides
backgroundinformationregardingAMPIA andits rolein theindustryanddoesnotincludeanyspecific
v tioon,cbo ou
However,the recorddoesnot include independentevidenceshowingthat
TelevisionAwardis nationallyrecognized.Theassertionsof counseldo not constituteevidence.
Matterof Obaigbena,19I&N Dec.533,534(BIA 1988);Matterof Ramirez-Sanchez,17I&N Dec.
503,506(BIA 1980).
The plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)requiresevidenceof "prizes" and
"awards" in the plural, which is consistentwith the statutoryrequirementfor extensiveevidence.
Section203(b)(1)(A)(i)of theAct. Significantly,notall of thecriteriaat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)are
wordedin theplural. Specifically,theregulationsat 8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(ix) only require
serviceonasinglejudgingpanelor a singlehighsalary.Whenaregulatorycriterionwishesto include
thesingularwithin theplural,it expresslydoessoaswhenit statesat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B)that
evidenceof experiencemustbein theformof "letter(s)." Thus,theAAO caninferthatthepluralin the
remainingregulatorycriteriahasmeaning.In a differentcontext,federalcourtshaveupheldUSCIS'
abilitytointerpretsignificancefromwhetherthesingularorpluralisusedin aregulation.3
2Thepetitionerdoesnotclaimto meetor submitevidencerelatingto theregulatorycategoriesof evidence
notdiscussedin thisdecision.
3SeeMaramjayav. USCIS,Civ.Act. No. 06-2158(RCL)at 12(D.C.Cir. March26,2008);Snapnames.com
Inc. v. Chertoff,2006WL 3491005at *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006)(upholdingan interpretationthat the
Page5
Consequently,theAAO withdrawsthedirector'sfindingwith regardtothiscriterionandconcludesthat
thepetitionerfailedtosatisfytheregulatoryrequirements.
Documentationof the alien's membershipin associationsin thefield for which classificationis
sought,whichrequireoutstandingachievementsof theirmembers,asjudgedbyrecognizednational
or internationalexpertsin theirdisciplinesorfields. 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(ii).
Thepetitioneroriginallysubmittedevidencerelatingto this criterionwith herFormI-140,andthe
petitionersubmitsdocumentsrelatingto membershipon appeal.However,thedirectorfoundthatthe
petitionerfailed to satisfythe requirementsof the regulationin his denial,andwhile the petitioner
submittedevidencerelatingto membership,shedoesnot specificallychallengethedirector'sadverse
findingon appeal.Consequently,theAAO concludesthatthepetitionerhasabandonedherclaim
regardingthiscriterion.SeeSepulvedav. US.Att'y Gen.,401F.3d1226,1228n. 2 (11thCir.2005)
citingUnitedStatesv.Cunningham,161F.3d1343,1344(11thCir. 1998);Hristovv.Roark,No.09-
CV-2731,2011WL 4711885at *9 (E.D.N.Y.Sept.30,2011).
Publishedmaterialaboutthealieninprofessionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia,
relating to the alien's work in thefield for which classificationis sought. Suchevidenceshall
include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessarytranslation. 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(iii).
Thepetitionersubmittedvariousarticlesasqualifyingevidenceunder8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii).The
publishedmaterialsubmittedfor considerationincludes:
regulatoryrequirementfor "a" bachelor'sdegreeor "a" foreignequivalentdegreeat 8C.F.R.§204.5(l)(2)
requiresasingledegreeratherthanacombinationof academiccredentials).
Page6
While the petitionersubmitteda significantnumberof articlesas qualifying evidenceunderthe
regulation,athoroughreviewindicatesthattheevidencedoesnotmeettheplainlanguagerequirements
under8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iii).
As aninitial matter,theregulationsspecificallyrequirethatthepublishedmaterialbe"aboutthealien."
Items 1-12from the abovenumberedlist centeron eventsor projects,in which the petitionerwas
involved.Thearticlesoftenmentionthepetitionerbriefly,buttheyarenotfocusedonthepetitionerand
areabouttheeventor theproject.
A reviewof therecordfurtherrevealsthatitem13,whilespecificallylistedin theappealbriefasan
article"discussingtheintroductionof [thepetitioner]asamaincharacterin thepopulartelevisionseries
Mentors,"hasnot actuallybeensubmittedwith the rest of the articles. Therefore,the AAO must
disqualifyit forconsiderationundertheregulations.
Items14-20arecomprisedof onearticlefrom TheEdmontonJournalandarticlesfrom theWetaskiwin
TimesAdvertisesthatappearto beaboutthepetitioner.Nonetheless,to fully meettherequirementsof
theregulation,thearticlesmustalsoappearin professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajor
media,relatingto the alien'swork in thefield for which classificationis sought. In theappealbrief,
counselasssertsthatthedirectoroverlookedcriticalinformationpresentedby thepetitioner,resultingin
anincorrectapplicationof thestanadardof reviewfor severalcriteria.Specifically,counselmaintains
thatthedirectorconcludedthatno corroborativeevidencewassubmittedasto whetherthepublication
appearedin majormediaasit canbejudgedby thesizeof its circulationbaseor influencein whichthe
publicationappeared.Counsel,however,statesthat the petitionerprovidedcirculationfiguresand
informationonall of thepublicationsmentionedin herpetition.
The petitioner provided circulation information about
thatwaspartly basedon informationgatheredfrom StatisticsCanadaandthe 2006
Census.Thecirculationinformationreflectsthat
withatotalcirculationof 11,317,whichappearstobeconsistentwithalocallydistributedpaper.Asfor
in theinitial submissionof evidencealongwith theI-140visapetition,the
petitionersolely submittedinformationand circulationnumbersfrom Wikipedia. With regardto
informationfrom Wikipedia,thereareno assurancesaboutthereliabilityof thecontentfrom this
open,user-editedinternetsite.4SeeLamilemBadasav. MichaelMukasey,540F.3d909(8thCir.
4 OnlinecontentfromWikipediais subjecttothefollowinggeneraldisclaimer:
Page7
2008). On appeal,petitionersubmitsa onepagedocumenttitled
which includessomeinformationaboutthe publication. Critically, the documentdoesnot include
thesourceor citationof thebackgroundinformationandappearsto largelyreiteratethecontents
from the previouslysubmittedWikipediaarticle. Furthermore,in the appealbrief, counselfor the
petitionerstatesthat"TheEdmontonJournal (italicsadded)is oneof thelargestdaily newspapersin
Alberta, Canadawith a weekly circulation of over 830,000." However, as noted above,the
assertionsof counseldonotconstituteevidence.Matterof Obaigbena,19I&N Dec.at 534;Matter
of Ramirez-Sanchez,17 I&N Dec. at 506. After consideringthe information and circulation
numbersthe petitionersubmittedaboutthe two papersthat publishedarticlesaboutthe petitioner,
the AAO affirms the director's conclusionthat the petitioner failed to submit independentand
probativecorroboratingevidenceabout the publicationsto sufficiently establishthey are major
media.
For all of theabovereasons,theAAO finds thatthepetitionerfailedto establishthis regulatory
criterion.
Evidenceof thedisplayofthe alien'sworkin thefield at artisticexhibitionsor showcases.8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(vii).
Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionerestablishedthiscriterion.Theinterpretationthat8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(vii)is limited to thevisualartsis longstandingandhasbeenupheldby a federaldistrict
court.SeeNegro-Plumpev. Okin,2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJat7 (D. Nev.Sept.8, 2008)(upholdingan
interpretationthatperformancesby aperformingartistdonotfall under8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii)).As
thepetitioneris not a visualartistandhasnot createdtangiblepiecesof art thatwereon displayat
exhibitionsor showcases,the petitionerhasnot submittedqualifyingevidencethat meetsthe plain
languagerequirementsof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vii). Accordingly,the AAO
withdrawsthedirector'sfindingwith regardto thiscriterionandconcludesthatthepetitionerfailedto
satisfytheregulatoryrequirements.
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or
establishmentsthathavea distinguishedreputation. 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEEOF VALIDITY. Wikipediais an online open-content
collaborativeencyclopedia;that is, a voluntaryassociationof individualsandgroupsworking to
developacommonresourceof humanknowledge.Thestructureof theprojectallowsanyonewith an
Internetconnectionto alterits content.Pleasebe advisedthatnothingfoundherehasnecessarily
beenreviewedby peoplewith the expertiserequiredto provideyou with complete,accurateor
reliableinformation.. . . Wikipediacannotguaranteethevalidityof theinformationfoundhere.The
contentof any given article may recentlyhavebeenchanged,vandalizedor alteredby someone
whoseopiniondoesnotcorrespondwith thestateof knowledgein therelevantfields.
Seehttp://en.wikipedia.orWwiki/Wikipedia:Generaldisclaimer,accessedon December14,2012,a copyof
whichis incorporatedintotherecordof proceeding.
Page8
TheAAO affirmsthedirectorin findingthatthepetitionerestablishedthiscriterion.
Evidencethat thealienhascommandeda high salaryor othersignificantlyhigh remunerationfor
services,in relationtoothersin thefield. 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix).
Thepetitionersubmittedvarioustypesof documentaryevidenceto demonstrateahighsalaryin relation
to othersin thefield. Theevidenceincluded,butis notlimitedto, copiesof contractsfromspecific
seriesor roles,comparativeinformationfromtheoccupationalemploymentstatisticsforactors,aswell
asthe2010occupationaloutlookhandbook,copyof anActraContract,earningsstatementsfromTalent
Partners,copiesof 2009W-2sfrom variousemployers,andcopiesof 2008W-2s from various
employers.
As aninitial matter,the AAO findsno errorin thedirector'sdecisionto disqualifythe contractfrom
On appeal,counselassertsUSCIShasimposeda standardbeyondwhatis requiredby the
regulationsin failingto acceptthe contract,whichwasonlysignedby oneparty,asevidence
of high remuneration.TheAAO agreeswith the directorthata contractsignedonly by oneparty
cannotdemonstratethatanagreementwasactuallyexecutedto paythepetitionerattheproposedrate.
Therefore,it is not probativeor credibleevidenceof a high salaryor othersignificantlyhigh
remuneration.
TheAAO alsoobservesthatthedirector'srejectionof contractwasnotthemostcritical
factor in the director'sultimate conclusionthat the petitionerin this instancefailed to meetthe
requirementsunder8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix).Counsel,in theappealbrief,statesthatin thesubmitted
documentsare"clearfactsshowingthat[thepetitioner]hasregularlycommandedanhourlyrateof well
over$10'O.00perhourfor herworkasanactor." Whilesomeof thepaystubsin therecordshowaclear
hourly wage, other documents,particularlythe financial documentsfor the work the petitioner
performedin theU.S.,fail to showthehourlywage.Thepetitionerhasfailedtootherwiseestablishthe
hourlywage. Therefore,theAAO affirmsthedirector'sconclusionthatUSCISis unableto makea
determinationregardingtheoverallratethepetitionerwaspaidbasedon financial documentationin the
record.
Moreover,the AAO also affirms the director'sfinding that averagesalaryinformationis not an
appropriatebasisfor meetingtherequirementsof theregulation;theevidencemustdemonstratethata
petitioner'ssalaryplacesthemat thevery top of their field ratherthansimplyaboveaveragein their
field. 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2).In a field, suchasacting,whereindividualsat thetop of thefield earn
extraordinarilyhigh earningsrelativeto everyoneelse,merelyshowingthat an individual'ssalaryis
abovethemedianor averagefor thefield wouldbeinsufficienttomeettheplainlanguagerequirements
of theregulations.Thepetitioner,instead,mustpresentevidenceof objectiveearningsdatashowing
that shehasearneda "high salary"or "significantly high remuneration"in comparisonwith those
performingsimilarwork duringthesametimeperiod.SeeMatterof Price,20 I&N Dec.953,954
(Assoc.Comm'r1994)(consideringprofessionalgolfer'searningsversusotherPGATourgolfers);
seealsoGrimsonv.INS,934F. Supp.965,968(N.D.Ill. 1996)(consideringNHL enforcer'ssalary
Page9
versusotherNHL enforcers);Muni v. INS, 891F. Supp.440, 444-45(N.D. Ill. 1995)(comparing
salaryof NHL defensiveplayerto salaryof otherNHL defensemen).
Consequently,theAAO concludesthatthepetitionerfailedtosatisfytherequirementsfor thiscriterion.
Evidenceof commercialsuccessesin theperformingarts,asshownbyboxofficereceiptsor record,
cassette,compactdisk,or videosales.8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(x).
The directordid not makea specificfinding with regardto this criterionin the denialbecausethe
directornotedin theDecember29,2011RFEthatthepetitionerhadnotprovidedanyevidencefor this
criterion. Thedirectorspecificallyrequestedin theRFE,evidenceof boxofficereceipts,salesreceipts
for audioor videorecordingsto showsuccessin theperformingarts,andotherrelevantevidence.The
record reveals that in the petitioner's RFE response,the petitioner generally suggestedthat
documentationof awards,nominations,andanarticlethatreferenceda "soldout" show,constituted
evidencefor thiscriterionandfailedto submitboxofficeor salereceiptsof audioor videorecords.As
aninitialmatter,the"soldout"crowdwasattheReynoldsAlbertaMuseum.As thepetitionerhasnot
submitteddocumentationregardingthe availablenumberof seatsin this venue,thereis insufficient
evidencein therecordto makea findingregardingthepetitioner'scommercialsuccessasit relatesto
the"soldout" show. Similarly,thepetitionerhasfailedto demonstratethatsheis responsiblefor the
popularityof theotherprojectsin whichshehasbeeninvolved.
On appeal,counselarguesthatthe directorincorrectlystatesin the RFE that thepetitionerfailed to
provideevidencefor this criterionandmaintainsthat the petitioner"has beenunjustlydeniedthe
opportunityto satisfythe Service'srequirementsfor this criterionbecauseshewasnot affordedthe
benefitof a well draftedRFE that clearlyindicatedany deficienciesin the originallysubmitted
documentation."Onappeal,thepetitionerhasincludedasevidencethe samedocumentationshowing
that the petitionerwas involved in specificprojectsthat have garneredrecognitionand awards.
However,thedocumentationsubmittedonappeal,like thepreviouslysubmittedevidencethatpurported
to meettherequirementsunderthiscriterion,doesnot include"evidenceof commercialsuccessin the
performing arts, as shown by box office receiptsor record, cassette,compactdisk or video sales."
8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(x).
Thepetitionerin thisinstancehasnotsatisfiedtheplainlanguageof theregulationsandfailedtosubmit
thetypeof evidencethatisspecificallyrequiredunder8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(x).Thepetitionerhashad
multiple opportunitiesto submitthe requestedevidenceandthe director'sRFE providedsufficient
noticeof thetypeof documentationthatwasrequired.In instanceswherethepetitionerwasnotifiedof
thetypesof evidencethatarerequiredto demonstrateeligibilityandwasaffordedtheopportunityto
providetheevidencepriorto theissuanceof anadversedecision,neweligibilityclaimswill notbe
consideredonappeal.SeeMatterofSoriano,19I&N Dec.764,766(BIA 1988).
Accordingly,theAAO concludesthatthepetitionerfailedtosatisfytherequirementsfor thisregulatory
criterion.
Page10
B. Summary
In light of theabove,thepetitionerhasnot submittedtherequisiteevidenceunderatleastthreeof the
evidentiarycategoriesfor which evidencemust be submittedto meet the minimum eligibility
requirementsnecessaryto qualifyasanalienof extraordinaryability. Nevertheless,we will reviewall
of theevidencein theaggregateaspartof ourfinalmeritsdetermination.
C. FinalMeritsDetermination
In accordancewith theKazarianopinion,theAAO mustnextconducta final meritsdeterminationthat
considersall of theevidencein thecontextof whetheror not thepetitionerhasdemonstrated:(1) a
"level of expertiseindicatingthatthe individualis oneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento the
verytop of the[ir]field of endeavor,"8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2);and(2) "thatthealienhassustained
nationalor internationalacclaimandthathisor herachievementshavebeenrecognizedin thefield of
expertise."8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).SeeKazarian,596F.3dat1119-20.
Therecordreflectsthatthepetitionerhashadearlysuccessasachildactressandparticipatedin several
popularprojectsin Canada.And astheleadactress,thepetitionerhadaleadingrolein thesuccessof
thoseprojects.Therecordrevealsthatsomeof thoserolesin Canadaalsoresultedin localandregional
mediacoverage,aswell asnominationsandanaward. While theseacknowledgmentssuggestthatthe
petitionermay have garneredsomedistinctionin comparisonto her peers,thoseendeavors,
significantly,did not meettheplainmeaningrequirementsof the regulatorycriteriafor awardsor for
publishedmaterial.See8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(2),(iii).
Furthermore,section203(b)(1)(A)of the Act requiresthatan aliendemonstrate"sustained"acclaim.
Therecordrevealsthat afterthe petitioner'stransitionto the U.S. andwork in non-childroles,the
petitionerappearsto haveworkedregularlyin televisionshowsandadvertisements.However,those
roles,unlikethechild rolesin Canada,havenot resultedin criticalacclaim,awards,or generatedany
national,or evenlocal,mediaexposure.The evidenceof the petitioner'smorerecentwork is not
persuasiveevidenceof sustainednationalor internationalacclaim.
Ultimately,the evidencein the aggregatedoesnot distinguishthe petitioneras one of the small
percentagewhohasrisento theverytopof thefieldof endeavor.
III. CONCLUSION
Thedocumentationsubmittedin supportof a claimof extraordinaryabilitymustclearlydemonstrate
thatthealienhasachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandisoneof thesmallpercentage
whohasrisentotheverytopof thefieldofendeavor.
Reviewof therecord,however,doesnotestablishthatthepetitionerhasdistinguishedherselfasan
actressto suchanextentthatshemaybe saidto haveachievedsustainednationalor international
acclaimor tobewithin thesmallpercentageattheverytopof herfield. Theevidenceindicatesthatthe
Page11
petitioneris a talentedactresswhohaspotentialtorepeatherearliersuccessesin theU.S.market,butis
not persuasivethatthe petitioner'sachievementssether significantlyabovealmostall othersin her
field. Therefore,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedeligibilitypursuanttosection203(b)(1)(A)of theAct
andthepetitionmaynotbeapproved.
Theburdenof proofin visapetitionproceedingsremainsentirelywiththepetitioner.Section291of the
Act,8U.S.C.§ 1361.Here,thepetitionerhasnotsustainedthatburden.Accordingly,theappealwill
bedismissed.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.