dismissed EB-1A Case: Acting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 25, 2024 In Re: 33818924 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner is an actor who seeks classification as an alien 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 Texas Service Center Director denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(petition), concluding that even though the record established that the Petitioner met at least three of 
the ten regulatory criteria, his case did not warrant a favorable finding in the final merits determination. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate 
eligibility to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify under this immigrant classification
, the statute requires the filing party demonstrate: 
• The foreign national enjoys extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics; 
• They seek to enter the country to continue working in the area of extraordinary ability; and 
• The foreign national's entry into the United States will substantially benefit the country in the 
future. 
Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i)-(iii) of the Act. 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-step analysis. In the first 
step, 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 move to the second step to 
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, 
1121 (9th Cir. 2010) ( discussing a two-step 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 Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner has been an actor for more than two decades and has appeared in multiple feature films 
and television series. 
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 alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Before the Director, the Petitioner initially checked the incorrect immigrant 
classification box on the petition and he did not clearly indicate what criteria he was claiming. After 
the Director issued two requests for evidence (RFE), Petitioner's counsel submitted a new and 
corrected copy of a petition and submitted a very brief statement explaining what criteria the Petitioner 
then directly claimed, and a short statement relating to the final merits. Within that brief statement, 
the Petitioner claimed he met seven of the regulatory criteria. 
The Director decided that the Petitioner satisfied three of the criteria relating to published material, a 
leading or critical role, and high salary or remuneration but did not indicate whether he met any of the 
other claimed criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he also satisfied the membership, 
contributions of major significance, display, and commercial success criteria and notes the Director 
failed to even indicate whether he fulfilled those regulatory provisions. After reviewing all the 
arguments and evidence in the record, we conclude that within this petition, the Petitioner has not 
adequately demonstrated he is eligible for this immigrant classification. 
Because the Petitioner has established that he meets three evidentiary criteria, it is unnecessary that 
we discuss the remaining criteria and associated evidence, but we will incorporate our analysis of those 
issues within the final merits determination below. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his 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 
2 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits determination, 
we analyze the Petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if his 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that he has 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). See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual 
(stating that USCIS 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 of the immigrant classification). In this matter, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not shown his eligibility. 
According to the Petitioner's initial filing statement, he started his acting career in 2000 and over the 
subsequent decades, he has steadily ascended in stature in that profession. He has appeared in several 
television programs and movies, which led to his approval for an 0-1 nonimmigrant visa to complete 
his projects, and his membership in the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences. While we agree the 
Petitioner is accomplished in his field, the record as presented in this petition does not demonstrate 
that his achievements rise to a level of a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by 
Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
We first address a shortcoming in the appellate filing in which the Petitioner relies on achievements 
that did not exist, or did not come to fruition, on or before the date he filed this petition. Because he 
must establish he is eligible for the requested benefit at the time of filing the application or petition, 
those achievements that postdate the petition filing date will not factor into this decision. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2(b)(1 ). There are multiple forms of evidence that postdate the petition filing date, but the most 
notable is the I I nomination in 2024. 
Although the Director discussed the Petitioner's membership in the Academy of Television Arts & 
Sciences, they did not consider I I letter. Within her letter, Ms. I I indicated the 
Academy of Television Arts & Sciences offers membership to those who achieve notable success in 
the television industry, and their membership is comprised exclusively of television industry 
professionals who have accrued enough credits or experience to meet the criteria for joining the 
Academy, as well as one of their specialty peer groups. She further noted the Petitioner's credited 
work was the basis for his approval ofNational Active status in the Performers Peer Group. According 
to Ms. I I that status "denotes those eligible to vote in our Emmy competitions and is conferred 
only upon those who have achieved a significant position within the industry or accumulated enough 
credits to exemplify proficiency at their craft." She listed the criteria for National Active status as: 
• The candidate is at least eighteen years of age; 
• They have been actively engaged in activities related to the production or distribution of 
television for national exhibition during the four immediately preceding years; and 
• They qualify for admission to one or more Peer Groups, or are nominated for a Primetime 
Emmy Award within the four years preceding their application for membership, or have 
achieved a significant body of work relevant to the peer group. 
As it relates to the third bullet, the Petitioner does not claim that he was nominated for a Primetime 
Emmy Award within the four years preceding his membership application in approximately 201 7. 
She also provided the requirements for those in the National Performers Peer Group as the following: 
3 
• Employment as a performer for a minimum of two years with ten qualifying credits of 
nationally exhibited content in a principal role within the past four years. Background work is 
excluded; 
• At least fifty percent of the ten qualifying credits must be from traditional network broadcast, 
cable and/or streaming service original content; and 
• Active (voting) members must maintain the current requirements of the peer group. All 
members will go through periodic reviews of their credits by the Performer Peer Group 
Governors to determine if they still qualify. If a member no longer meets the criteria for Active 
membership, they are moved to an Associate (non-voting) membership. 
Although Ms.I ldid not mention it, the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences' website reflects 
the organization charges annual dues for National Active memberships, and members submit an 
application for inclusion rather than exclusively being invited to join based on career achievements. 1, 2 
Being part of this entity, and to a lesser extent the above listed criteria, demonstrate this membership 
is notable as it denotes the Petitioner is part of a professional organization thatplays a significant role 
in the television industry in the United States. But neither he nor Ms. explains why it is 
indicative of or consistent with sustained national acclaim or a level of expertise indicating that he is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of his field. 
Additionally, the statute and regulations require the Petitioner to demonstrate that his national or 
international acclaim has been sustained. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ l l 53(b )(1 )(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The documentation submitted under this regulatory area 
is a single instance of above-average membership and it predates the petition filing date by approximately 
six years. The Petitioner has not demonstrated how this single instance is consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim, nor has he shown that one membership is representative of extensive 
documentation. 
Regarding the published material regulatory area, the Director decided the Petitioner's evidence did not 
demonstrate that his overall publication record is tantamount to a career of acclaimed work or that it 
demonstrates the required sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal, the Petitioner's brief 
states that he "appeared in well know [sic-] publications and said publicity has been, absent the [2023 
actor's] strike, continuous for the past 15 years. This is sustained national and international acclaim." 
This is not a substantive rebuttal to the Director's analysis in the denial decision as it doesn't delve into 
why the published material amounts to at least sustained national acclaim, and we will not address this 
regulatory area further. 
And the Petitioner discusses an interview that occurred prior to the date he filed the petition, but it was 
not released to the public until after the filing date. He claims the interview "could not be released to the 
public until after the actors strike ended on November 13, 2023," but the interview was published in 
January 2024 well after the Petitioner states the strike ended and he does not account for the delay. If the 
Membership at the Television Academy, Television Academy Emmys (Aug. 15, 2024), 
https:/ /www.emmys.com/members/join. 
2 No Invitation Necessa1y, Television Academy Emmys (Aug. 15, 2024), https://www.emmys.com/members/video/2024-
02. 
4 
Petitioner wished to include that published material in this petition, it would have been necessary for him 
to wait an additional month to file this petition. 
We will not factor that achievement into this analysis any more than we would count a lifetime 
achievement award issued after the petition filing date for work a foreign national completed before they 
filed the petition. The Petitioner must establish he is eligible for the requested benefit at 
thetimeoffilingthe application or petition. 8C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that he is one of a small percentage who have risen to the very top in his field, or that he 
has sustained national or international acclaim in this regulatory topical area. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) 
of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
Turning to the original contributions of major significance topic, the Petitioner's initial filing before the 
Director did not directly assert eligibility relating to his contributions and in response to the RFE he only 
presented his career statistics consisting of the following: 
[The Petitioner] has been an active actor for 23 years. He has more than 60 credits at the 
time of the submission of this at-issue Petition including appearing in 39 television series, 
13 feature films, 8 television movies and to which the Beneficiary has brought his 
originality to his diverse roles. 
The Director discussed several letters the Petitioner offered from those in his industry and decided that 
even though they reflected his achievements, they did not sufficiently support his claims that he is 
considered among that small percentage at the top of his field. On appeal, the Petitioner simply offers the 
same statement about his career statistics without refuting any element in the denial decision. Lacking is 
the Petitioner's perspective explaining how his lengthy stint in the field is a contribution to the field that 
is of major significance. Simply demonstrating a long span accumulating work credits is not a showing 
his body of work is commensurate with those who are part of the small fraction of individuals at the very 
top of field of endeavor or that he has amassed a "career of acclaimed work." H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 
(Sept. 19, 1990). 
Under the subject area of the Petitioner's work on display at artistic exhibitions or showcases-before 
the Director and on appeal-he only highlights one film he appeared in that premiered at the 
Film Festival. The Petitioner offered an article, a single document that appears 
to represent a screenshot of a YouTube interview with one of the film's stars, and a Wikipedia printout 
about the festival. 
We begin with the information from Wikipedia, as there are no assurances about the reliability of the 
content from this open, user-edited internet site. See General Disclaimer, Wikipedia (Apr. 6, 2024), 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer; see also Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 
909, 910 (8th Cir. 2008). While this documentation is not without value, it carries significantly 
diminished evidentiary weight within the present proceedings and the information on this website must 
be corroborated by additional probative evidence. 
Regarding the film the Petitioner appeared in which premiered at the ________ Film 
Festival, we acknowledge he was billed as one of the film's lead actors. Still, despite that fact, he has 
not illustrated that the film's premier at that festival is sufficiently representative of sustained acclaim. 
5 
Nor is a single instance and the limited supporting evidence present here indicative of the very high 
standard to present more extensive documentation. See H.R. Rep. No. 101-723 at 59 and 56 Fed. Reg. 
at 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). And finally, he does not demonstrate this festival that appears more 
intended to represent independent films is on par with some of the most prestigious festivals such as 
Cannes, Sundance, Venice, or Toronto. 
Regarding the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), while 
the Director decided he performed in a leading or critical role for one qualifying organization in his field, 
they also determined he did not show that his employment as an actor was reflective of, or has resulted 
in, widespread acclaim from his field or that his performance in any role placed him among those at the 
very top of the field. The Director also found that he did not hold any other leading or critical roles for 
organizations or establishments with distinguished reputations. As a result, the Director noted the 
Petitioner's qualifying performance or acclaim for one entity was not sustained as this classification 
mandates. 
In the appeal, the Petitioner refers back to the claims and evidence he presented in the RFE response to 
show that he has performed in a leading or critical role for several entities. But a review of his RFE 
response only reveals that he listed several organizations and asserted he performed both leading and 
critical acting roles for those establishments without offering further arguments of how his performance 
as a single actor was leading or critical for the entity itself This leaves us agreeing with the Director's 
determination relating to this regulatory subject area. The record the Petitioner developed is not indicative 
of or consistent with sustained national acclaim or a level of expertise indicating that he is one of that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of his field. 
Again, the Director decided that the Petitioner met the high salary criterion pursuant to the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), but in the final merits analysis concluded he did not show that his earnings 
were at a level reflecting national or international acclaim or that they placed him among the small 
percentage at the top of his field. In the appeal, he highlights the material that delineates between 
struggling actors who never break through and who do not earn enough to solely rely on their acting 
wages to make a living, as compared to those who can focus solely on acting for their earnings. 
To synthesize the Petitioner's claims, his earnings were well above the average for other actors in general. 
But that is not the type of comparison to directly establish how high his earnings were for other actors at 
the top of the field. The Petitioner has not provided information that would enable us to provide a proper 
determination of whether his salary is reflective "of that small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor." Additionally, on appeal he identifies materials that postdate the petition filing 
date, and we already detailed why that type of evidence will not factor into this decision. 
The Petitioner claims films in which he acted brought in gross revenues of more than $34 million in 
the United States and Canada alone, and more if we were to consider other major countries. But the 
Director didn't even grant the criterion within step one of the adjudication process at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(x). 
Notably absent from the record is evidence of box office receipts for other commercially successful 
movies in the United States or Canada to which we could compare the box office evidence relating to 
the Petitioner's films. The situation we face again is the record lacks evidence in which to compare 
6 
in a topical area where it is necessary to contrast the Petitioner's accolades with others who are at or 
near the top of the field. And as it relates to the N etflix series the Petitioner advances, he offered a 
contract for that production reflecting he appeared in one episode and he completed his commitment 
to that project in one working day. 
So, despite the popularity that series experienced and his efforts to correlate that to the area of 
commercial success, he does not explain how his presence in one episode in a ten-episode series was 
so consequential that the series' success can measurably be attributed to his appearance. Ultimately, 
the record does not demonstrate the Petitioner's works have garnered sufficiently critical acclaim or 
favorable press reviews or otherwise drew a significant level of sales in a manner consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he maintained high 
box office receipts reflecting his recognition in the field. 
In summary, the Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already 
at the top of their respective fields, rather than for those progressing toward that goal. Although he 
has made notable strides in his career and may be poised for further growth, at this point he remains 
in a liminal stage in his endeavors. 
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). The Petitioner's evidence confirms that he is an accomplished actor with some work as a lead 
performer. However, considering the full measure of the Petitioner's ability and achievements, the level 
of his national or international acclaim and the extent to which his achievements have been recognized in 
the field are not indicative of a record of sustained acclaim. Also, he has not submitted extensive 
documentation exhibiting he has attained a level of expertise placing him among that small percentage 
that has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
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. In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's 
burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. The Petitioner has not met that 
burden here. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7