dismissed EB-1A Case: Acting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 13883616 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 2, 2021 
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 concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that she meets at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this 
classification. 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, we conclude that the Petitioner has 
not met this burden. Accordingly, 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 a multi-part analysis. First, a pet1t10ner 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit 
comparable material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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 film and television productions. The record reflects that she 
worked as a~----------~ in Canada prior to transitioning to an acting career. She 
relocated to the United States in 2014 and is a member of the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television 
and Radio Artists (ACTRA) and Screen Actors Guild - American Federation of Television and Radio 
Artists (SAG-AFTRA). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has 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). The Petitioner claims to meet seven of these ten criteria, summarized 
below: 
• (iii), Published materials in professional publications or major media; 
• (iv), Judging the work of others 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance in the field; 
• (vii), Display of her work at artistic exhibitions or showcases; 
• (viii), Leading or critical roles for organizations with a distinguished reputation; 
• (ix), High salary or other significantly high remuneration; and 
• (x), Commercial successes in the performing arts. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met only one of these seven criteria, relating to judging the 
work of others in her field. The record reflects that the Petitioner was a member of the I I I !Nominating Committee for the 25th Annual Screen Actors Guild (SAG) Awards in 
2018. Based on the evidence provided regarding the SAG Awards nomination process, we agree with 
the Director that the Petitioner has met the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director's decision contains multiple errors and oversights 
and asserts that she meets six additional criteria, which we will discuss below. After reviewing all the 
evidence in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has met a second criterion, relating to the 
display of her work at artistic exhibitions or showcases. However, she has not established, as required, 
that she satisfies at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for this classification. 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the individual'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 submitted copies of articles from various Canadian print and online publications. The 
Director determined that none of the submitted articles meet all requirements set forth in this 
regulation. The Director observed that two of the articles are about the Petitioner and relate to her 
work as an actor, but found insufficient evidence to establish that the articles, published byl I 
magazine and actorsentertainment.com, respectively, appeared in professional, major trade or major 
media publications. He farther noted that many of the articles were published in the late 1990s and 
early 2000s when the Petitioner was working as ~ I for a Canadian television station serving 
thel I area. The Director classified some of this evidence as "local media" and 
determined that these articles do not relate to the Petitioner's work in the field for which classification 
is sought (in this case, acting). Finally, the Director noted that some of the submitted articles only 
briefly mention the Petitioner and are therefore not "about her" while other articles did not include the 
author of the material as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Director did not provide sufficient explanation to support 
his determination that she did not satisfy this criterion. She states, for example, that the Director did 
not identify which articles were deemed to be "local media," specify which articles were lacking 
information regarding the author, or address why the information she provided regarding the 
circulation statistics for various publications was insufficient to establish that they are "major media." 
The Petitioner also contends that the Director should have given foll consideration to older articles 
that relate to her work as a I l noting that her career in I I garnered her 
recognition that allowed her to successfully transition td I acting roles. 
Turning to the submitted evidence, we acknowledge that both the I I magazine and 
actorsentertainment.com articles are about the Petitioner and relate to her work as an actor. The article 
from actorsentertainment.com (which includes an embedded interview on the website's ActorsE Chat 
show) was accompanied by a screenshot from website.informer.com indicating that the website has 
267 daily visitors, 534 daily page views and an "Alexa Rank" of 4,967,327. The article from I I 
was not accompanied by any information regarding the magazine, its intended audience, or its 
circulation or distribution statistics in comparison to other publications, information which the 
Petitioner maintains she has been unable to obtain. 1 
1 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 (providing that evidence of published material in 
3 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a screenshot from 
actorsentertainment.com indicating that its ActorsE Chat streaming show has over 1500 episodes and 
over 6.9 million viewers. The Petitioner submitted an article from Deadline which provides ratings 
for ABC network's Thursday night lineup, showing that its top-rated show had 6.48 million viewers. 
She stated that "if this is considered a top major program then it stands to reason that ActorsE Chat 
would be considered the same" and should qualify as a major medium. However, the evidence does 
not establish that Actors£ Chat enjoys an audience comparable to that of a major network television 
show. Based on the limited information provided, it appears that its 1500+ episodes have cumulatively 
garnered 7 million views over the course of its 10 seasons; the evidence does not establish that this is 
the typical viewership for any of its online video interviews or the associated articles. In order to show 
that actorsentertainment.com qualifies as a major medium in its online category, the Petitioner would 
need to submit comparative website statistics. The information provided at the time of filing, showing 
an "Alexa Rank" of 4,967,327, does not support the Petitioner's claim that actorsentertainment.com 
is a major medium. The Petitioner did not provide other comparative data showing this website's 
ranking in relation to similar websites. 
With respect to the article published i~ I magazine, the Petitioner reiterates on appeal that she 
has been unable to obtain evidence regarding the magazine's circulation or distribution in relation to 
other, similar publications. She provides the resume for the author who wrote the article about her 
and asserts that since the author is a paid professional writer, the article qualifies as a "professional 
publication." Her argument that any article written by a professional writer is a "professional 
publication" is not persuasive. A professional publication is typically one which has members of a 
specific profession as its target audience and would include, for example, a scientific journal. The 
limited evidence in the record regardin~ I does not establish that it qualifies as a professional, 
major trade publication or other major medium. 
The Petitioner submitted several articles fro 
are not about her and relating to her work. A 2011 article titled r-------.-----------------' I t' is an interview with.__ ___ ____. the Petitioner's co-star in the movie 
I I This article includes one sentence about the Petitioner noting has a lead role in 
this movie and was formerly a I I at 's station. She is not 
otherwise mentioned in the three-page article, which is abou .__ __ ___. rather than about her. 
Other articles froml I date from the Petitioner's tenure as an.__ ______ _, 
,___ _ ____.I A 1999 article titled l I (from the newspaper's fashion section) is limited to a 
photograph of the Petitioner, with a caption that identifies where she bought her outfit and how much 
she paid for it. Two articles published in 2000 are about Thel ~ move to a new studio. One 
article includes a photograph of the Petitioner and her I I but she is only briefly 
mentioned in the body of the article. The other article is about a party held to celebrate the opening of 
the new studio and appeared in the newspaper's Food section; the Petitioner appears in a captioned 
photograph. A photocopy of a clipping from another article titled '------------~ 
I I is largely illegible but appears to include a photograph of the Petitioner 
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). 
4 
identifying her as ~ I A 1998 clipping from the "Letters" section of the newspaper 
includes a photograph of the Petitioner identifying her as a ~-----,--~ but there is no 
accompanying article. None of the referenced articles or captioned photographs qualify as published 
material "about" the Petitioner and relating to her work. Articles that are not about a petitioner do not 
fulfill this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plwnpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. 
Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles regarding a show are not about the actor).2 
Further, several of the newspaper clippings have only handwritten notations identifying the date of 
publication and identifying the source of the article a · this required information 
is not identified on the copied portion of the newspaper itself. 
Finally, the Petitioner submitted a clipping of ar-=n=ew.;..;...;;;;s=ai;;..e=r=--=art=...;:;;;.;ic='l..;;;..e....;;t=it=le:;..:d;:;....a_ __ ---,.... ______ __, 
I I which is about the new ownership of the and its rebrandin 
asl I The article discusses the Petitioner's move to the.__ __________ _. 
However, the article does not include the date or title of the publication or identify the author of the 
article as required by the regulation. As with several of the other articles attributed to I I I I the date of publication and I I have been handwritten on the provided 
photocopy. 
The Petitioner also rovided several articles ublished b A 1997 article titled D 
'includes two photographs of the Petitioner L---------r--------------,_J 
identifying her as .__ ____________ ___.' but the accompanying article, only a portion 
of which is provided, does not mention her and is not about her. A 1998 article titled 1 I 
I ~ is also about I I' It mentions the Petitioner in a photo caption and notes 
that she would be I I but the article is about changes at the 
TV station and was not written about her. 
The Petitioner also rovided evidence that she has appeared inl l which is described on its 
cover as..,....----------,--~ One article from the Winter 2002 edition provided coverage 
of the 2 is.__ ________ __. uction and includes a photograph of the Petitioner with a caption 
identifying her as "celebrity auctioneer." A 2000 article title 1 I I I' is about the new ownership of thd.___~~tation. The Petitioner did not provide the complete 
article and she is not mentioned in the portion provided. She appears in a captioned photograph. 
For the reafons disrusse<l th] ~7- does not establish that the articles that appeared in the 
publications ,I I an~ ~re about the Petitioner. Further, 
several of the copies provided are ac ~mg cert am elements required by the regulation, including the 
date, title and/or author of the material. Nevertheless, we have also considered the Petitioner's claims 
that these publications qualify as major media. She asserts that both.__ _____ __, and D 
I I are owned by "one of the top leading daily newspaper ownership groups in Canada" and 
she compares their respective current circulation figures to those of the top 10 U.S. newspapers (as of 
2020). She has not provided evidence re ardin their respective circulation rankings among Canadian 
daily newspapers and her claims tha publications should be considered 'Tai or media " 
because .__ ___________ _,are not persuasive. She also emphasizes that I 
2 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 7 (providing that the published material should be about 
the petitioner relating to his or her work in the field, not just about his or her employer or another organization with whom 
he or she is associated). 
5 
magazine "is distributed as an insert in the foll circulation of Canada's largest newspaper, I.__ __ ___. 
I I There is evidence supporting thatl I qualifies as major media in Canada, 
but as noted, the submitted articles froml I did not satisfy the other requirements of the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Therefore, for the reasons discussed, the Petitioner did not establish that she meets 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) 
In order to satisfy 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. 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. 
The Petitioner did not claim to meet this criterion at the time of filing. However, in response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE), she stated that she "created a TV Reality Series calle~ I 
~ in 2017 and later teamed up with producd I and director! I inl 12019 
to farther develop and produce the show, which would see me as the executive producer, original 
concept, and main host/performer." The Petitioner explains that the show concept would have been 
presented to potential buyers/distributors at thel I pitch event in 2020 but notes that 
the event was canceled due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The record contains evidence related to the 
show, including a synopsis, a budget (drafted November 2019 with a projected start date of March 
2021), a co-production contract, and an IMDb page. The Petitioner emphasizes that the producers and 
directors continue to work on the show's development. 
In evaluating this criterion, the Director emphasized that the show is still in development, would not 
air until 2021 at the earliest, and therefore could not establish the Petitioner's eligibility as of the date 
of filing. The Director also observed that the Petitioner did not demonstrate how her work on this 
project qualifies as an original contribution of major significance in the performing arts. Finally, the 
Director questioned how the Petitioner's proposed role as the host of this show would be "germane to 
[her] achievements as an actress." 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that thel !concept is original and emphasizes that she is 
credited as its creator. With respect to the Director's assertion that her prospective role as host of the 
show would not be "germane," she emphasizes that it was her role as al I that 
initially qualified her for entry to ACTRA (Canada's union for professionals working in movies and 
television) and asserts that a host, like an actor, is a performing artist. She acknowledges that the show 
would not be scheduled to air prior to 2021, but notes that the concept, budget, and co-production 
agreement were in place prior to the filing of the petition. Finally, in response to the Director's 
determination that the Petitioner did not establish how her show concept is a contribution of major 
significance to the performing arts field, she states that "[ s ]ubmitting the budget is quantitative proof 
of the impact the show would have on the US economy and especially for others in my field of 
endeavor who would obtain work and income from this project." She asserts that she submitted 
6 
evidence that the show will make "a significant contribution to the performing arts, the US economy, 
American families and the United States as a whole." 
While we agree with the Petitioner that her proposed hosting role can be deemed to fall within her area 
of expertise in the performing arts, her other arguments with respect to this criterion are not persuasive. 
The evidence sup[corts her claim that the show concept, proposed budget and co-production agreement 
forl existed at the time the petition filed in December 2019. However, none of this 
evidence is sufficient to establish the "major significance" of a television series that has not yet found 
a distributor, filmed an episode, or aired before a viewing audience. The Petitioner must establish 
that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the 
filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). For the purposes of meeting this 
criterion, she must provide evidence of an original contribution or contributions that have already been 
widely implemented throughout the field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or µ.aY.e.., 
otherwise risen to a level of major significance. She has not established that her show concept foil__J 
I lhas had this impact and her projections regarding its potential artistic and economic impact 
are not sufficient to meet her burden. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
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 Director emphasized that this criterion is "limited to the visual arts." We disagree with the 
Director's interpretation that the plain language of the regulation renders this criterion applicable only 
to visual artists. The regulation requires only that the work displayed be a given petitioner's own 
work product and that the venues at which the individual's work was displayed be artistic exhibitions 
or showcases. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 3 As such, certain exhibitions or showcases featuring the 
work of performing artists may meet the plain language of this regulation. 
Here, the record reflects that the Petitioner was credited with a significant role in the 2010 Canadian 
film I I which was screened at several film festivals including the~-------~ 
I I Film Festival and I I Film Festival. In contrast to commercial movie releases, a given 
film festival may select films for screening based on their artistic merits and thus may be deemed an 
exhibition or showcase of the work of the artists involved. Based on the evidence submitted regarding 
the screening of I I at film festivals, we conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied 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) 
For the purposes of this criterion, A leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall 
organizational hierarchy and through the role's matching duties. A critical role should be apparent 
3 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra at 9-10 (stating that officers should use the common 
dictionary definitions of "exhibition" and "showcase" in evaluating this criterion). 
7 
from the Petitioner's impact on the organization or the establishment's activities. The Petitioner's 
performance in this role should establish whether the role was critical for the organization or 
establishment as a whole. 
The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner claimed eligibility under this criterion based on her 
performances in television shows, movies and a miniseries and discussed several of the 
recommendation letters she provided. However, he determined that the evidence did not establish her 
leading role or demonstrate that her performances contributed in a way that was of significant 
importance to the outcome of a studio or production company. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she performed "leading and critical roles for the biggest television 
shows rnllrently on air" in reference to her single ersodP12l?earances on award-winning series □ 
I I ll andl__J. She also em hasizes that she was cast 
in critical roles in several made-for-television movies that ap 
of the Emmy-nominated miniserid I on the 
eared on network, in an episode 
winning I hioviel I and in I~--~ 
Channel, in thd laward 
an official selection of several film 
festivals. 
The regulation requires a Petitioner's role to be leading or critical "for organizations or establishments," 
and the Petitioner has not established that any of these productions themselves constitute organizations 
or establishments. Therefore, even if we determined that she held a leading or critical role for a 
distinguished production, additional evidence would be required to meet the requirements of this criterion. 
As noted by the Director, the Petitioner also submitted letters from representatives of production 
companies and other organizations to establish that she meets this criterion. The letters, however, do not 
establish that she held a leadin or critical position for these organizations. 4 I J vice 
president of mentions the Petitioner's roles in thd l moviel I 
and in th~---~movi ~--~ and notes that he produced both movies forl I While he 
asserts that the Petitioner's performances in these movies were critical to the individual productions, he 
does not indicate whether or how she served in a critical role for.__ ___ ~ _ ___. The Petitioner 
subsequently submitted an updated letter froml lthat was identical to the first, but included a 
statement that the Petitioner's "performances have contributed greatly to the success ofl I 
in garnering the necessary investment dollars through her popularity as a talented actress whose 
performances consistently resonate with, and draw, a worldwide audience." We agree with the Director's 
determination that these general assertions are not substantiated in the record and are insufficient on their 
own to demonstrate the Petitioner's leading or critical role with! I The record does not include, for 
example, evidence that links the Petitioner's attachment to ::e=] production with a large investment or 
other demonstrable evidence of her impact on the company's finances. 
We have also considered a letter !rum director and produce~ I who slate that t" worked wi~ 
the Petitioner on an episode oi I documentary seriesl foJ I 
Channel. He praises her "outstanding performance" and asserts that it contributed to the critical and 
4 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 10 (stating that letters from individuals with personal 
knowledge of the significance of a petitioner's leading or critical role can be particularly helpful in making this 
determination as long as the letters contain detailed and probative information that specifically addresses how the role for 
the organization or establishment was leading or critical). 
8 
commercial success of the production. He also refers to.__ _________ a_s_"_a_n_a_c_cl_a~imed production 
company." But I I does not claim to be a representative of 
'---,----:------=t 
Channel and his letter does not establish how the Petitioner's role in an episode of.__ ____ ____, 
leading or critical to either of those organizations . 
.__ ____ _.I President/Executive Producer o~ .... ________ ____.I, also provided a letter in support 
of the petition. He states that his com ortant and critical roles" in numerous 
productions includingg,1.. ______ .....J..JL__~ __ _J'Jr-----,--------' 
I I and.__ _________ ~ .... __ ~ movie. He ._a_d_dr_e_s-se_s,-----,..s_. 
distinguished reputation and asserts that the network approved of casting the Petitioner in 
I I because of her talent and proven versatility. Whild lstates that he has .... w-o-rk_e_d_w-ith~ 
the Petitioner on eight productions, he does not state how her involvement on these projects has impacted 
the activities o~ I in a way that is commensurate with performing in a leading or 
critical role with that organization. Nor does his letter establish that he is able to speak to the Petitioner's 
leading or critical role forl I 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter from who indicates that she produced the Canadian 
realit~ I series .__ _____ ____, for . The record reflects that the 
Petitioner hosted this show, which aired nationwide in Canada o ~---~ for two seasons (2004 to 
2005).1 I states that the effect of the Petitioner's work "on sales" was "measurable" and 
noted that "we were able to track consumer response from week to week.'I I states that "as 
a direct result of her participation on the show" the Petitioner "had a substantial influence onl I I I (a Canada-based home improvement roduct retailer), as well as on the show's 
sponsors, including! 6 and I I Whil a ears to be in a position 
to discuss whether the Petitioner held a leading or critical role wit .__ ______ _., she does not 
provide sufficient detail to establish that the Petitioner held such a role, nor does the record contain 
evidence ot1 I distinguished reputation. The Petitioner has not submitted letters from 
l I or from the sponsors mentioned by I !explaining how her role as host of .... I _ ____, 
1 ..... ----~I was leading or critical for any of those organizations. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides evidence ofl I's 2004 purchase of another building supplies 
company for $1...0.fil4 and states that "I argue that the show and my role on the show was a significant 
contribution toL....Js earning muscle to be able to make such a huge acquisition." She also emphasizes 
tha~was eventually sold tol lin 2016 and asserts that I lwas a large part of 
the attraction for the sale as it enhancen as a 'well-known brand."' As noted, the Petitioner does 
not offer a letter from a representative~ I. or its successor, or any eyidence o~her thanc=J 
I ts letter, in support of her claims that her hosting role was critical to thel .... __ ____.J organization 
as a whole. 
The Petitioner also provided a letter froml la general sales manager with I ~ 
b l and former chairperson of the I O _ 
He states that he invited the Petitioner to serve on the charil's board and notes that during her 
association, "the organization reached record donations." I expresses that he is "confident that 
her participation and reputation assisted greatly to that record." On appeal, the Petitioner supplements 
the record with additional evidence of her involvement inl I charitable events, mostly during 
her tenure as '----------~ She has not established that her involvement with these 
9 
organizations and events meets all elements of this criterion and, as noted by the Director, these activities 
do not appear to reflect her achievements as a performing artist. 
The Petitioner also provided a letter froml I Head of International Sales fo~ I a 
French film company. She states that, from 2016 through 2019, the Petitioner "has been an essential art 
of our entertainment team for the critical sales and marketin of r===~=-L----~------------l 
offerings to the international buyers that attend the~-------~ in Santa Monica, CA in 
November." I I refers to the Petitioner as a "vital team member" and credits her with 
responsibility for "many various and demanding tasks and responsibilities that enabled us to work 
smoothly and supported our sales team in the challenging tasks of sales and marketing for France's lar est 
film producer and distributor." We agree with the Director's determination that "-r-------~ 
description of the sales support duties performed by the Petitioner during the r=a=nn=u=a=l.__,__ ___ ___J 
I ~vent does not establish how she serves in a leading or critical role to th...__ __ ___, organization 
as a whole. 
Finally, the Petitioner emphasizes that she submitted 11 reference letters from fellow actors and industry 
professionals who attest to her achievements and requests that they be reviewed under this criterion as 
"comparable evidence." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows for comparable evidence if the 
listed criteria do not readily apply to a petitioner's occupation. A petitioner should explain why she has 
not submitted evidence that would satisfy at least three of the criteria set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), 
as well as why the evidence she has included is "comparable" to that required. 5 General assertions that 
any of the ten objective criteria do not readily apply to an occupation are not probative. Similarly, claims 
that USCIS should accept recommendation letters as comparable evidence are not persuasive. 6 Here, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate why an actor cannot ofter evidence that meets at least three criteria. In 
fact, she has consistently claimed that she can meet as many of seven of the ten criteria. We note that we 
have considered reference letters that contain information relevant to specific criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that she meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
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 satisfy the requirements of this criterion, the Petitioner must establish that she has received a high 
salary, or other significantly high remuneration, based on a comparison with others in her field in 
similar positions and geographic locations. 7 
The Petitioner provided a copy of her 2018 Canadian tax return, 8 some of her IRS Forms W-2 for 
2018 and 2019, evidence of contracts and payments she received for work in individual television and 
5 See also USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 12. 
6 Id. 
7 Id. at 11 (noting that it is the petitioner's burden to provide geographical and position-appropriate evidence to establish 
that a salary is relatively high). 
8 This document shows that she earned total income of$80,761.09 (Canadian), most of which was received as "lump-sum 
payments" reported on one or more Forms T4A, copies of which have not been provided. 
10 
movie projects, and evidence of residuals payments made to her. Her claim that she has commanded 
a high salary is primarily based on the hourly or daily wage she has received for her work on certain 
projects. The record does not contain evidence of her overall salary and other remuneration from all 
sources for any given year, nor is it clear based on the evidence submitted how frequently she is 
engaged to work on a project-by-project basis. Many of the projects documented in the record through 
contracts or deal memos required a short commitment ranging from one day to one week. 
The Petitioner provided comparative salary data from several sources, including: Payscale, which 
shows an average actor/actress hourly pay of $19.95 and a 90th percentile wage of $99.43; the 
Department of Labor's Foreign Labor Certification (FLC) Online Wage Library, which shows a Level 
4 hourly wage of $48.08 for actors in thel I area; and, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 
which shows that actors in the United States earn a mean hourly wage of $29 .14, with the 90th 
percentile earning at least $60.41. 9 In determining that the Petitioner does not meet this criterion, the 
Director noted that the provided FLC Level 4 and Payscale 90th percentile hourly wages amount to 
annual salaries of over $100,000 and over $200,000 respectively, and that the Petitioner had not 
established that her earnings have reached that level in an given year. 
The Petitioner also provided an online article titled "What are the Typical Starting Average Salaries 
for an Actor?", published by the Houston Chronicle in 2018. The article summarizes 2016 BLS salary 
data for actors, but also includes separate sections addressing the salaries paid to movie and television 
actors, noting that starting salaries for such actors "are defined by [SAG-AFTRA]." According to 
this article, the minimum salary for a television or movie actor hired for one day is $933 and those 
hired for one week earn $3,239 (as of2016). The record also includes a 2009 article from The Toronto 
Star which provides some average annual income figures for Canadian actors, but does not address 
hourly, daily or weekly rates set by ACTRA for television and movie actors. Further, the record 
contains no recent evidence regarding salaries of actors in Canada that could serve as a basis for 
comparison with the income figures reported on the Petitioner's 2018 Canadian tax return. 
Because the Petitioner is a member of SAG-AFTRA and ACTRA working in film and television roles, 
the salary information she provided from Department of Labor and Payscale, which appear to include 
all actors, may not allow a meaningful comparison of her earnings "in relation to others in the field." 
While SAG-AFTRA members may generally earn higher salaries compared to other actors, it is 
reasonable to compare her earnings to that of other professional movie and television actors whose 
pay is dictated by this union scale. 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 Crimson 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). 
Based on the evidence of payments she received for individual projects, the Petitioner has not 
established that she has commanded a hi~h salary compared to other television and movie actors. She 
provided a copy of her deal memo for the I motion picture I I indicating that she 
was guaranteed compensation at "SAG Scale $3,320 per week+ 10%" for a guaranteed work period 
9 On appeal, the Petitioner also submits 2020 salary data for actors/performers from Sala1ycom. 
11 
of one week for her role asl t'10 We cannot determine based on the evidence submitted 
that earning 10% above the standard salary set by SAG-AFTRA amounts to a "high salary" in relation 
to others. The record reflects that the Petitioner was aid at or ·ust above the standard SAG "day 
~r" rate for her appearances in the television seriesL.---~----1-------~-,____J and 
L_J and "SAG scale" for her roles in commercials fo ~-~ an .__ _______ ____.As noted, 
while the Petitioner submitted various forms of evidence in support of this criterion, the record does 
not clearly show her total salary or total remuneration for her work as an actor in any given year. 
Based on her hourly or daily earnings as documented in the record, she has not established that she 
commands a high salary in comparison to other movie and television actors. 
With respect to her work in Canada, the Petitioner provided evidence that she was aid "ACTRA 
double scale" for her services as the host of the second season of th'l'-'-......,,.......,_,...._ ______ ....1 sen es 
~------~in 2005 and for one day of shooting for an ~-----~video in 2012. 
However, there is insufficient evidence demonstrating that this constitutes a "high salary" for a 
professional host or actor in Canada. As noted, the supporting evidence related to salaries for Canadian 
actors is limited to the above-referenced 2009 Toronto Star article. 
Finally, while the record contains evidence that the Petitioner has received additional remuneration 
for some of her work in the form of residual payments, she has not provided supporting evidence to 
establish that such remuneration has been "significantly high" when compared to the residual 
payments that others in the field receive, or otherwise shown that her total remuneration is significantly 
high. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x) 
This criterion focuses on volume of sales and box office receipts as a measure of a petitioner's 
commercial success in the performing arts. The evidence must show that the volume of sales and box 
office receipts reflect the individual's commercial success relative to others involved in similar 
pursuits in the performing arts. 11 Fulfilling the criterion is not simply a matter of demonstrating credited 
involvement in a commercially successful film or show. 
The Petitioner asserts that she meets this criterion based on the commercial success of the motion 
picture which achieved $5 million in receipts in its first week of theatrical release and $12 
million in overall. 12 She also emphasizes the ratings success of the I I 
television movie~---~ pointing to a press release published by Zap2/t, which indicates that the 
movie was viewed by 3 .4 million viewers and was one of the most watched TV movies of the 
2010/2011 season among female viewers ages 12-34. Finally, on appeal, she submits evidence related 
to DVD sales for the moviel I, in which she played the role of.__ ____ ~' An article 
10 A letter the executive producer oti lstates that the Petitioner was paid $3,652 for a single day of work on the 
film, which is not consistent with the terms of the deal memo specifying that she was paid at the SAG weekly rate. 
11 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 12. 
12 On appeJ tbe Petitijner submits an article from www.boxofficemojo.com titled 'I I Box Office for 2018" 
which rank .__ __ _. at number 46 out of 512 movies released inl I during the 2018 calendar year. 
12 
published by the-numbers.com in October 2009 indicates that the DVD sold 95,000 units ($1.42 
million) in its first week ofrelease for a tenth-place finish on "the DVD sales chart." 
Even ifwe concluded based on this evidence that the Petitioner has established the commercial success 
of one or more of these projects, it is her burden to establish that the box office receipts and television 
ratings reflect her individual success in relation to other performing artists and she has not yovided 
sufficient evidrce ta meet tlis burden. She played small roles as al - in both 
I pnd.__ ____ __, She has not submitted media coverage, reviews, promotional materials, 
or other evidence that associates either movie's box office or sales results with her involvement in the 
project. 
While the record reflects that the Petitioner was cast in._l ~--__.I as the mother of one of the main 
teen characters, it does not include independent evidence demonstrating that the ratings success of the 
movie can be attributed to her inclusion in the cast. The Petitioner provided evidence that several 
actors who appeared in the movie received award nominations for their performances, but the 
Petitioner was not among them, nor is she mentioned in the submitted reviews or rher nromotiona) 
materials about the movie. We acknowledge that[ La Vice President with_ I 
and the producer of states in his letter that the Petitioner's "beautiful and critical 
performance aL-_r----------,1 was, without question, instrumental to the critical acclaim and 
commercial success.__ ___ __,chieved," but he does not elaborate and this general statement is 
insufficient to establish that all elements of this criterion have been met. 
The Petitioner claims on appeal that the Director should have considered the critical success of her 
film and television projects in evaluating whether she satisfied this criterion. As noted by the Director 
in his decision, the plain language of this criterion focuses on commercial successes based on box 
office receipts and sales; it provides no basis for evaluating critical acclaim or success in the 
performing arts in the alternative. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that she meets this criterion. 
B. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Petitioner has previously been granted 0-1 status, a 
classification reserved for nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. The prior nonimmigrant approval 
does not preclude USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a 
different standard - statute, regulations, and case law. An immigrant petition filing is a separate 
proceeding with a separate record and a separate burden of proof. In making a determination of 
statutory eligibility, USCIS is limited to the information contained in that individual record of 
proceeding. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l6)(ii). 
We are not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, 
merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See Matter of Church Scientology 
Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988); see also Sussex Eng'g, Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 
1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987). Nor are we bound to follow a contradictory decision of a service center. 
La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *3 (E.D. La. 2000), aftd, 248 
F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001). 
13 
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 at 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. 
14