dismissed EB-1A Case: Acting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10857082 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : OCT . 5, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an actor, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability.1 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 Nebraska Service Center Director denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, 
concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner had a major, internationally recognized 
award, nor did the foreign national demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
In our decision on the Petitioner's appeal, we came to the same conclusion as the Director. The 
Petitioner now submits a combined motion to reopen and reconsider, together with new evidence, and 
asserts that he meets two additional criteria as well as those we decided in his favor in our appellate 
decision. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 2 
Upon review, we will dismiss the motions. 
I. LAW 
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 sustained 
acclaim and the 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 
categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material 
in certain media, and scholarly articles). Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, 
we then consider the totality of the material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). 
2 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
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. 3 
A motion to reopen is based on new facts that are supported by documentary evidence, and a motion 
to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The requirements of a motion to 
reopen are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), and the requirements of a motion to reconsider are located 
at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). If warranted, we may grant requests that satisfy these requirements, then 
make a new eligibility determination. 
II. ANALYSIS 
Within the Director's decision, he concluded that the Petitioner had satisfied the requirements of the 
published material criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), but that he had not met the contributions 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) or the leading or critical role requirements at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Ultimately, the Director denied the petition. We came to the same conclusion in 
our appellate decision and further determined that the Petitioner had not shown that the significance 
of his work was indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or that it was 
consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. 4 Moreover, 
we decided that the record did not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner had garnered national or 
international acclaim in the field, and he was one of the small percentage who had risen to the very 
top of the field of endeavor. 5 
On motion, the Petitioner addresses two criteria: ( 1) that he performed in a leading or critical role for 
entities that have a distinguished reputation, and (2) that he has contributed original contributions of 
major significance in the field of acting. 
A Procedural Shortcomings 
First-and as part of the basic requirements to file any motion before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS)-the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(iii) requires that a motion must be 
accompanied by a statement about whether or not the validity of the unfavorable decision has been or is 
the subject of any judicial proceeding and, if so, the court, nature, date, and status or result of the 
proceeding. We note that the Petitioner did not submit a statement relating to this mandate. Pertaining 
to this shortcoming, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4) requires that a motion that does not meet 
applicable requirements shall be dismissed. As the Petitioner did not provide the required statement, the 
motions must be dismissed based solely on this essential regulatory requirement. 
Additionally, a motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect 
application oflaw or policy, and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of 
proceedings at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
3 See Kazarian v. USC1S, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). 
4 H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19. 1990); see also section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
5 See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
2 
In his motion brief: the Petitioner presents a summary of the case history and our determinations when 
we dismissed his appeal. Neither the motion brief nor other documentation in support of the motion, 
identifies any errors in our decision based on the record at the time. As this filing does not satisfy the 
requirements for a motion to reconsider the matter, we will dismiss this motion. 
B. Motion to Reopen 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 6 According to 
the Instructions for Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion), any new 
facts and documentary evidence must demonstrate eligibility for the required immigration benefit at 
the time the application or petition was filed. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) does not define 
what constitutes a "new" fact. We interpret "new facts" to mean facts that are relevant to the issues 
raised on motion and that have not been previously submitted in the proceeding, which includes the 
original petition. Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence 
does not constitute "new facts." 
1. Leading or Critical Role Criterion 
The Petitioner claims he performed in a leading or critical role for three rriries: 11~1 I 
Coaching, providing services as a private acting coach and mentor; (2) an organization 
founded to assist South African performing artists inl I and (3) Worldwide. 
a . ._l ____ _.!Coaching 
~----~~he owner of this coaching organization, indicated within his initial letter that the 
Petitioner began as one of his students. As the foreign national's instructor, he noted unique gestures 
the Petitioner would perform that I I incorporated into his own auditions for new acting 
positions, as well as into his teaching curriculum. I I attributes this knowledge to the 
Petitioner and he stated that this new technique resulted in more of his clients having success in their 
auditioning process. 
In a subsequent letter, I I indicated that the Petitioner's ability encouraged him to bring him 
on board to assist in coaching his clients. He also noted that the Petitioner played a vital role in 
choosing the right material and providing feedback for the students. Within I Is letter 
submitted with the motions, he claims that the Petitioner holds a key position in his organization and 
the action vocabulary technique has become an essential part of the business. 7 I I farther 
states that the technique has resulted in many breakthroughs for himself: for many of his successful 
students, and for other actors that the Petitioner has trained outside o~._ ____ ___.t s business 
operations. 
In our appellate decision, we concluded that I I offered claims of how the Petitioner 
contributed to the methods he utilized on his clients, but the record did not establish the critical 
6 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
I I describes the action vocabulary technique as a method of various body movements in which the actor 
displays a physical reaction associated with the text in the script rather than the traditional method of reacting blindly to 
the text from a purely mental state. 
3 
capacity the foreign national played in the success of the business. Within his motions, the Petitioner 
offers a new letter froml ~ that discusses the "action vocabulary technique" he performed 
for the coaching studio. 
Reviewing all three letters froml lin the record, we observe inconsistent accounts relating 
to the Petitioner's involvement in developing what is now referred to as the action vocabulary 
technique. Inl ~s first letter, he did not mention the "action vocabulary technique" and 
instead described how the Petitioner "brought out some very unique approaches" and that his 
"attention to detail and international experience plard a valuable part in my audition and character 
process" for an acting role. Within I s second letter, he stated that "[ w ]hen I began 
teaching [the Petitioner], I introduced this method to him and as a result he responded very well to it 
in a very short period of time." 
Now in s third letter, he presents differing accounts of the method's origins. D 
~--~ 1mtia y states that"[ w ]e created a unique and highly effective technique," and indicates that 
this method was an "incredible insight that [the Petitioner] and I discovered." He goes on to state that 
without the Petitioner, "I would not have developed the effective and popular Action Vocabulary 
Technique." I ts differing accounts do not establish what the Petitioner's level of 
involvement was in developing the action vocabulary technique. The Petitioner must resolve this 
inconsistency in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 8 He 
has not met his burden to demonstrate that he has contributed in a way that is of significant importance 
to the outcome of the organization's or the establishment's activities. 9 
Further, the record does not corroborate I ~ assertions on the importance of the action 
vocabulary technique for h~ ormmiwtio,. Although he describes it as "popular," we observe that 
none of the quotes listed on I._ _____ __,]' s website discuss the action vocabulary technique. Outside 
ofl ts letters, the record contains no references to the technique that would indicate its 
importance to the organization. Therefore, I ts unsupported assertions fall short of 
demonstrating the Petitioner's eligibility under this criterion. Such statements made without supporting 
documentation are of limited probative value and are insufficient to satisfy the Petitioner's burden of 
proof 10 
Finally, in reference tol Is statement relating to the foreign national training actors outside 
of I I Coaching, the Petitioner has not explained how that activity sufficiently relates to 
this criterion's requirements demonstrating that he has performed in a leading or critical role forc=J 
I I coaching. Additionally,! I does not offer specific examples, and the Petitioner's 
motion brief does not describe corroborating evidence identified under the leading or critical role 
criterion, relating to the "many ... successful students" that the foreign national has trained on this 
organization's behalf The record lacks evidence supporting I l's claims. Such statements 
made without supporting documentation are of limited probative value and are insufficient to satisfy the 
8 Matter of Ho, 19 T&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
9 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 10 (Dec. 22, 2010) (Policy 
Memo), http://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda. 
10 See Matter of Sofjici, 22 l&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998). 
4 
Petitioner's burden of proof. 11 The Petitioner has not demonstrated that he performed in a leading or 
critical role for the I I Coaching organization. 
Turning to the issue of whether the I I Coaching organization enjoys a distinguished 
reputation, we determined in the appeal decision that I l's statements and screenshots from 
his website were inadequate to demonstrate this requirement. Within the motions, the Petitioner 
claims that top actors have been quoted regarding the importance of the organization, which are also 
posted on I Is website The Petitioner posits that if these quotes were not accurate, those 
actors would have sued I land had him remove the content. Reviewing the actors' 
comments on the website appears to reflect more uponl I himself than on him as an acting 
instructor, and notably, these actors make no mention of the organization itself. 
Finally, the Petitioner's motion brief does not specifically describe how any other evidence establishes 
this organization enjoys a distinguished reputation. As a result, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
that he has satisfied the requirements for the leading or critical role criterion relying onl I 
Coaching. 
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 discemable from its impact on the organization 
or the establishment's activities. An individual's performance in this position should establish whether 
it was critical for the organization or the establishment as a whole. The evidence relating to this 
organization is comprised of a printout from their website's "About Us" page and three letters from 
I lthe CEO and founder o~ I This organization's mission is to provide fellow South 
African artists a safe haven to further pursue their entertainment careers when they arrive i~ I 
In his first letter, I I indicated that he hired a small group of experienced South African artists to 
aid newly arriving actors from that country acclimatize to the acting atmosphere in the United States. □ 
I lindicated that the Petitioner provided vital information to the new personnel including "how to 
immigrate, what to expect in the acting commruities in tr United States, and what is required in order 
to be successful in I O I as an artist." ~----~-stated the result was an elevation ofi I 
within the community, which was evidenced "when we attended the private screening of the major motion 
picture 'Walk to Freedom - Starring Edris Elba' [sic] which took place at the prestigious 'Directors Guild 
of America' in Hollywood." He further noted that the Petitioner was one of this organization's youngest 
founding members and that he is dmember lo~ !committee. Within his second letter,I I 
reported that the Petitioner assiste through teaching their acting students new techniques, which 
resulted in their foreign pupils quickly and effectively adapting to the American film and television 
market. 
In our a]pellate decision, we decided that I bd not clearly identify what the Petitioner's role for 
I encompassed nor did he sufficiently explain how the foreign national had contributed to the 
overall success of the organization's activities. Within the Petitioner's motion brief: he contends that his 
unique method has helped the organization's new actors to expand their craft by integrating new cultures 
11 See id. 
5 
and backgrounds into their characterization techniquesJ !claims the success of the Petitioner's 
acting curriculum has expanded Ito hundreds of members. 
Correspondence from those with "personal knowledge of the significance of the alien's leading or 
critical role can be particularly helpful to USCIS officers in making this determination as long as the 
letters contain detailed and probative information that specifically addresses how the alien's role for 
the organization or establishment was leading or critical." 12 However, I l's letters do not 
sufficiently describe the Petitioner's role in such a way. While making broad claims about his impact, 
the letters lack details about the Petitioner's work and its effect on the organization. I ldoes 
not provide relevant details, such as when or how often the Petitioner taught, how many students he 
instructed, or how these classes were more significant than the organizations other activities. The 
Petitioner has not supplemented the record with other evidence demonstrating the significance of his 
role. 
Next, we address the claim that the Petitioner's work elevated! lin the acting community through 
their invitation to attend the private screening of a major motion picture. Although I I 
attributed the foreign national's efforts to the organization's invitation to a private screening, he did 
not explain the link between this alien's actions and such an overture. 13 Simply claiming that the 
Petitioner trainedl I students does not sufficiently elucidate such a result, and the Petitioner 
should offer more than simple assertions relating to this cause-and-effect relationship. 14 However, the 
Petitioner did not offer probative material demonstratinJ lwas invited to attend a private screening 
of this movie, nor does the record depict a discemable connection between! land this movie other 
than both share South African roots. 
As it relates to the Petitioner's membership on I I committee,! I did not describe the 
duties the Petitioner performed in that role that might illustrate his functions were leading or critical. 
Finally, the Petitioner did not support his claim that expanded because of his work. The 
record does not establish how many members had rior to his assistance, nor does it contain 
evidence to corroborate I I's assertions that.__ __ __....xpanded "to hundreds of members" after 
the Petitioner joined. Further, even if such an expansion took place, the Petitioner does not establish that 
it was primarily attributable to his "acting curriculum." In summary, the record does not demonstrate 
how the Petitioner's performance forl I was sufficiently leading or critical. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not established that he performed in a qualifying role for I I_ 
Within our appellate decision we farther stated, "the record does not contain any independent evidence 
regardin~ lor its reputation that would support a finding that it enjoys a distinguish el reputati[ n." 
Even if the Petitioner had demonstrated that he performed in a leading or critical role for his 
motion does not address the organization's reputation. As a result, the Petitioner has not established that 
this organization would satisfy this criterion's requirements. 
12 Policy Memo at 10. 
13 We were unable to identity a movie by the name "Walk to Freedom," starring Idris Elba. We presume! I most 
likely meant the movie Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom. 
14 See Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 371-72 (discussing how assertions that are not supported by probative material will not 
meet a filing party's burden of proof). 
6 
c. ~I ---~!Worldwide 
For the final entity the Petitioner claims on motion, he relies on a self-defense training organizatio--11U_ 
B
orldwide. Priorto the motioln1, the on]yl eldence the Petitioner olkred was letters frornc::::J 
a senior lead instructor for the Worldwide facility inl !California, and 
two accompanying blog posts about . Within our decision on the appeal, we noted the lack 
of material relating to the particular studio wher~ I works inl ~ rather than to the 
larger corporate structure by the same name. 
On motion, the Petitioner discusses our appellate decision, I I's tenure at the company, and 
how the foreign national has benefitted stunt choreography in major motion pictures, and the personnel 
acting in those movies. We discussed thee topics in our decision on the appeal and they are not new 
facts relating to the Petitioner's role for !worldwide, nor did the Petitioner present new 
facts about the distinguished nature of the organization. Therefore, he has not met the requirements 
for a motion to reopen for this organization or establishment. 
2. Contributions of Major Significance 
Within our appellate decision, we discussed several letters in support of the Petitioner's acting skills and 
talents, noting an absence of his significant impact within the overall field beyond acting students. On 
motion the Petitioner offers additional letters, some from the same individuals we discussed in the appeal 
dismissal, that explain how he has benefitted their own careers and unspecified others in the industry. 
Because the Petitioner must satisfy at least three criteria to move to a final merits determination, and he 
is unable to achieve a favorable decision in at least three criteria based on our above analysis, it is 
unnecessary that we analyze his eligibility under the last claimed regulatory provision; his original 
contributions of major significance under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 15• 16 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that we should either reopen the proceedings or reconsider our 
adverse appellate decision. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
15 See Matter of L-A-C-. 26 T&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues where an applicant is 
otherwise ineligible). 
16 Additionally. we reiterate the apparent conflict inl l's letters as it relates to the origin of the action vocabulary 
technique. That technique was the Petitioner's only claim to eligibility under the contiibutions of major significance 
criterion. While we do not reach a conclusion on the merits of the Petitioner's claim, the inconsistencies in the record 
relating to the origin of the action vocabulary technique should be addressed in any future filing. 
7