dismissed EB-1A Case: Acting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 11973164 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 31, 2020 
Form 1-140, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, 1 concluding that although the 
Petitioner satisfied the initial evidence requirements for this classification, he did not demonstrate his 
sustained national or international acclaim and establish that he is among the small percentage at the 
very top of his field of endeavor. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, the Petitioner has not met this burden. 
Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203 (b )( 1) 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 
1 Initially, the Director issued a notice acknowledging the withdrawal of the petition. The Petitioner filed a motion to 
reconsider, asserting that he had not requested the withdrawal. The Director granted the motion and issued a decision 
denying the petition on its merits on March 5, 2019. The Petitioner appealed that decision to our office, and we withdrew 
the Director 's decision and remanded the matter to the Director for entry of a new decision. The Director's new decision, 
dated April 8, 2020, is now before us on appeal. 
(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 a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through 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 sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria 
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) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is an actor who works in the Chinese film, television and theater industry. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the ten alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner claimed to meet four of these criteria, and the Director 
concluded that he submitted evidence to satisfy at least three of them. 2 Specifically, the Director 
determined that the Petitioner met the criteria relating to lesser nationally recognized awards, 
published materials in major media, and participation as a judge of the work of others in his field. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii) and (iv). We will not disturb the Director's determinations with respect 
to these criteria. 
After determining that the Petitioner satisfied three of the regulatory criteria, the Director proceeded 
to a final merits determination. Based on an evaluation of the totality of the evidence, the Director 
2 The Director's decision contains a typographical enor and states that the Petitioner "has met the plain language of 
criterion i, ii, ii, and iv." However, the explanation that followed indicated that the Petitioner met the awards, published 
materials and judging criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii) and (iv). Specifically, before proceeding to the final merits 
determination, the Director referenced the Petitioner's participation on a judging committee fort he China Film Performing 
Arts Institute, his receipt of al !Award for acting in 2004, and media coverage of the Petitioner and his work in 
People's Daily. In the final merits determination below, we will consider evidence submitted in support of all claimed 
criteria, including the criterion related to memberships in associations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
2 
concluded that the record did not show the Petitioner's sustained national or international acclaim and 
demonstrate that he is at the very top of his field of endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in conducting a multi-part analysis and final 
merits determination, citing to both U.S. Supreme Court caselaw on statutory interpretation and 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Specifically, the Petitioner cites to Escondido Mut. Water 
Co. v. La Jolla Band of Mission Indians, 466 U.S. 765, 72 (1984), in which the Court determined that 
"[absent] a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, [statutory] language must ordinarily 
be regarded as conclusive." The Petitioner argues this same plain language rule applies to regulatory 
language and that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires only that he provide evidence of a 
qualifying major, internationally recognized award or evidence that satisfies at least three of the ten 
alternate criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). He further contends that "[s]ince Service Center 
acknowledged [he] has met at least 3 of the 10 criteria, according to the US Supreme Court's plain 
language rule, this petition should be approved." 
The Petitioner further claims that the Ninth Circuit Court's decision in Kazarian supports his position. 
Specifically, he maintains that, according to Kazarian, if an applicant has satisfied at least three of the 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), "he should win" and if "he has met 2 or less, he 
should lose." In addition, he states that "[n]owhere in Kazarian v. USCIS does 9th Circuit rule that 
meeting 3 types of evidence does not qualify for extraordinary abilities." The Petitioner is mistaken 
in his reading of Kazarian, which does in fact set forth the multi-part analysis referenced above, in 
which eligibility can only be established if a petitioner first meets the initial evidence requirements of 
a qualifying major internationally recognized award or at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Kazarian decision does not state that meeting three of these criteria establishes 
eligibility for this classification. Rather, Kazarian discusses a two-part review where the evidence is 
first counted and then, if fulfilling the initial evidence requirements, considered in the context of a 
final merits determination to determine whether a given petitioner is one of that small percentage who 
have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor consistent with the statute and regulations for this 
restrictive classification. 
Therefore, for the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that the Director erred in 
proceeding to a final merits determination. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner submitted the reqms1te initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, sustained national or international acclaim and that 
he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits determination, 
we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if their 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that they have extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. 
See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1119-20. 3 In this matter, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he meets 
3 See also USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Ceitain Form T-140 
3 
this very high standard. On appeal, the Petitioner has not addressed the Director's decision beyond 
objecting to its inclusion of a multi-part analysis and final merits determination. Upon our de nova 
review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, we have reached the same conclusion as 
the Director. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner has maintained a professional acting career in China's theater, 
television, and film industries since the 1980s. A published article about the Petitioner mentions that 
he was admitted tol I folk arts troupe as an arts student in 1974, and later studied at the 
.__ __ ___.I Drama Academy's Department of Performance beginning in 1980. We note that the record 
does not contain the Petitioner's complete filmography, but only highlights a few of his more notable 
projects over the course of his career. 
As mentioned above, the Petitioner has won awards for acting, been featured in at least one major 
media publication, and served as a judge for an award given in the Chinese film industry. He also 
submitted evidence of his membership in a national association for theater actors. The record, 
however, does not demonstrate that his achievements are reflective of a "career of acclaimed work in 
the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
The Petitioner has established that he has received five acting awards from national performin arts 
entities in China. Based on the evidence submitted, the most significant of these awards was 
Award forl I Actor he received in 2004 for his role in the fil~-----------' 
I la role which also resulted in his nomination for a~----~ Award. The 
Petitioner described the I I Award as the "highest government honor in film industry" and as 
one of China's three main film awards along with thel I Awards andl I 
A wards. Although the Petitioner did not submit documentation describing these awards or their 
relative significance, we note that the record reflects that he received major media recognition in 
People's Daily as well as media coverage in other Chinese publications based on his receipt of the 
I IA ward and I I nomination. The evidence establishes that the award is nationally 
recognized and that his receipt of the award garnered the Petitioner some national acclaim in China. 
However, he received this award 13 years prior to filing the petition and must demonstrate that he 
sustained this level of acclaim and remains at the very top of his field. 
The record also demonstrates that the Petitioner received a China I !Actor Award 
from the China Television Artists Association in 1993 for his role·in the serie~ I 
LJ The Petitioner described thel O I as "one of the most prestigious television awards 
alongside th~ IA wards andl I Awards," and provided background information regarding 
the award from the user-edited online encyclopedia sites Wikipedia and Baidu, 4 and from China 
Documentary Network, as well as a list of all previous winners from Sahu. While the evidence 
confirms the Petitioner's receipt of the award in 1993 and is sufficient to establish that it is a nationally 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADl 1-14 4 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (stating that USCTS officers should then evaluate the 
evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, the required high level of expertise for the immigrant classification). 
4 We note that Wikipedia and Baidu are online, open source, user-edited encyclopedias. Wikipedia explicitly states it 
cannot guarantee the validity of its content. See General Disclaimer, Wikipedia (last visited Dec. 22, 2020), 
https://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Wikipedia: General disclaimer; see also Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). 
4 
recognized award in the Chinese television industry, the record does not demonstrate that he received 
significant media coverage as a result of winning the award. Further, the record lacks evidence 
establishing the level of national acclaim associated with this achievement, or to what degree such 
acclaim was sustained, given that the record contains little or no other evidence relating to the 
Petitioner's career in the 1990s. 
For his work in theater, the Petitioner received a China.__ ______ __.Award from the China 
Drama Art Research Society in 2014. The award is described in the record as "the only professional 
award for Chinese drama art," and the record includes evidence that a list of the 2014 winners was 
published on the websites of thel !Theatre of China and the I I Theatre Association. 
However, the record does not include evidence that the award ceremony or the winners received, for 
example, media attention from major media or entertainment industry publications and does not 
otherwise establish to what extent this award, the only one he received in the same decade the petition 
was filed, contributed to the Petitioner's sustained national acclaim. 
Finally, the Petitioner provided evidence that he has twice received the I I Award" ( also known 
as the I I Award") from the China Film Performing Art Institute, in 1989 and in 2005. 
According to the selection rules published on the website of the China Film Performing Art Institute, 
the award is "a professional award voted by and issued to its I I in the institute." This bi­
annual award is also described in the record as "the only performance art award in China solely voted 
by I I" The Petitioner submitted evidence that the 2005 award ceremony was covered 
by Sina Entertainment (http://ent.sina.com.cn) but we cannot determine based on one media report the 
extent to which these awards, granted to the Petitioner 28 and 12 years prior to the filing of the petition, 
resulted in or contributed to his sustained national or international acclaim. 
Overall, the evidence related to the Petitioner's awards establishes that he has received industry 
recognition based on his performances on stage, in television and in film, as well as some major media 
recognition, specifically as a result of his I I Award received in 2004. Although his awards 
span a period of 25 years, he received all but one of his acting awards 12 or more years prior to the 
filing of the petition in 201 7, while the significance of his one more recent award has not been 
established. For these reasons, the evidence related to his awards does not demonstrate his sustained 
national acclaim in his field and indicate that he is currently among that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field. 
The Petitioner has also submitted evidence related to his membership in the China Theatre 
Association. The Petitioner initially submitted a membership certificate issued to him by the 
association in October 201 7, just prior to the filing of the petition, but later submitted a letter from a 
deputy director with the association who stated that he was admitted as a member in 2003. The record 
does not include an explanation for this apparent discrepancy in the Petitioner's date of admission to 
the association. 
With respect to the membership requirements, the Petitioner provided the China Theatre Association's 
2015 Constitution, its membership admission rules as of 2018, and the referenced letter from its deputy 
director. The association's constitution provides that membership is available to theater workers with 
"definite achievements in the field of drama art." The deputy director's letter states that "only those 
who have achieved the highest achievement in the industry and have national popularity can join the 
5 
China Theatre Association, otherwise they can only join the provincial or municipal theatre 
association." He further states that successful applicants for membership must have "national 
influence, receive performance award and [be] regarded as representative figures in their field of 
expertise." Finally, the association's membership admission rules provide that actors must have 
"senior titles" or be "individual winners of national drama awards or first prize winners in provincial 
... level awards." 
While all three of these descriptions of the association's membership requirements provide that 
prospective applicants are evaluated based on their achievements in theater, they do not describe these 
requirements consistently. Although the Petitioner claims that membership requires a national theater 
award as an achievement, there is no evidence that he himself had received such an award prior to 
2003, the admission date provided by the organization's deputy director. Nevertheless, even if we 
determined that the China Theater Association requires its members to have outstanding achievements, 
we cannot conclude based on the evidence presented that membership in this association is indicative 
of an individual's sustained national acclaim in the field, gamers an individual such acclaim, or that 
membership is reserved for those actors in the small percentage at the very top of the field. 
Regarding published material about him, the Director determined that the Petitioner submitted a 
qualifying article published in People's Daily in 2004. This interview with the Petitioner, published 
shortly after his receipt of thel IA ward and a~----~ Award nomination for his role in 
~------------' was supported by sufficient independent evidence to establish that the 
publication qualifies as major media. However, most of the ten submitted articles about the Petitioner 
were not accompanied by such evidence, as the Petitioner relied on user-edited encyclopedias like 
Wikipedia and Baiku, and the publications' own websites, without providing objective evidence that 
such publications enjoy high circulation or distribution in comparison in relation to others, or that they 
are professional or major trade media. 
Even if we determined that the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence to establish that all or most of 
the submitted articles had appeared in major media, the evidence does not establish that ten articles 
published over the course of a decades long career in the film and television industry is consistent with 
the sustained national or international acclaim necessary for this highly restrictive classification. See 
section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. As noted, a few of the submitted articles focus on the Petitioner's 
receipt of the 20041 !Award. Four of the articles relate to the Petitioner's role in the 2012 film 
I I and the Petitioner was interviewed by China TV Newspaper in connection with his role 
in the television serie~ I in 2009. The evidence also includes a 2002 article from Beijing 
Youth Daily in which he was interviewed about his film and television career and his return to live 
theatre, and a 2013 article from Netease Entertainment that discusses his role in the playc==J 
The only recent article, published on the website mp.weixin.qq.com, is a 2017 article titledL__j 
,___.,.....,....------~ This article, which appears to be a blog post attributed only to ..... l ====;I 
provides a career retrospective, highlighting some of the Petitioner's film roles from the mid- l 980s, 
his role inj~----~l and his role in a 2016 film~ ________ __,that is not mentioned 
elsewhere in the record. 
The submitted media coverage shows that the Petitioner has received media recognition for certain 
roles and projects during his career but does not demonstrate that he has enjoyed sustained national 
acclaim. The Petitioner works in a high-profile industry in which most, if not all, projects receive 
6 
media coverage to some extent. Without evidence that sets him apart from others in this field, he has 
not established how the submission of ten published articles about him demonstrates that he is among 
"that small percentage who [has] risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(2). The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of 
the Act provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary 
ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more extensive 
documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). 
Finally, as it pertains to the Petitioner's service as a judge of others, an evaluation of the significance 
of his experience is appropriate to determine if such evidence is indicative of the extraordinary ability 
required for this highly restrictive classification. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-22. The Petitioner 
provided evidence showing that, in 2015, he served on the judging committee responsible for selecting 
the 15th Institute Award winners for the China Film Performing Arts Institute. However, the Petitioner 
did not establish that this single judging instance places him among the small percentage at the very 
top of his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). He did not show, for example, how his judging experience 
compares to others at the top of the field, that the committee included only nationally acclaimed artists, 
or that the judging committee members received significant recognition in the field as a result of their 
participation. 
The record as a whole, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Petitioner's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. The record reflects that the Petitioner has enjoyed a long career as a 
stage, film and television actor, is regarded as a talented performer, and has received some industry 
and press recognition with respect to a few of his projects over the years. However, the Petitioner 
seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals who are at the top of their 
respective fields. USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not 
automatically meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of"extraordinary ability." 
Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954. While the Petitioner need not establish that there is no one more 
accomplished to qualify for the classification sought, we find the record insufficient to demonstrate 
that he has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the top of 
his field. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his 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. 
7