dismissed EB-1A Case: Acting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-B-J-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 17, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
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 Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only one of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which 
he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner presents previously submitted documentation and a brief, arguing that he 
fulfills at least three of the ten criteria. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) 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 achievement s have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation , 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospecti vely the 
United States. 
Matter of R-B-J-
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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 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 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). 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). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true." Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner has performed in theatrical and musical productions in the Dominican Republic and the 
United States. Because he 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). 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner met one of the initial evidentiary 
criteria, awards under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). However, for the reasons discussed later, the record 
does not reflect that the Petitioner demonstrated his eligibility for the awards criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he fulfills three additional criteria, discussed below. We have 
reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
2 
Matter of R-B-J-
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Director found that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion without identifying the qualifying 
award( s) and explaining his determination. In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must 
demonstrate that he received the prizes or awards, and they are nationally or internationally recognized 
for excellence in the field of endeavor. 1 Relevant considerations regarding whether the basis for 
granting the prizes or awards was excellence in the field include, but are not limited to, the criteria 
used to grant the prizes or awards, the national or international significance of the prizes or awards in 
the field, and the number of awardees or prize recipients as well as any limitations on competitors. 2 
Because the record does not reflect that the Petitioner established eligibility under the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), we will withdraw the findings of the Director for this criterion. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner received the Association of Latin Entertainment Critics of New 
York (ACE) Award and the Hispanic Organization of Latin Actors (HOLA) Award. As it relates to 
the ACE Award, the Petitioner submitted screenshots from premiosace.org and metrord.do similarly 
stating that ACE is a press organization founded on December 12, 1967, by a large group of New 
York-based Hispanic journalists and correspondents, and its annual award ceremony is broadcasted in 
the United States "with extensive press, radio and television coverage." However, besides these two 
websites, the Petitioner provided and referenced only two other websites, upi.com and 
newyork.methodactingstrasberg.com, which covered the ACE Awards. 3 Moreover, the Petitioner did 
not identify any radio or television stations that broadcasted or reported on the Ace Awards. Here, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that the ACE Awards received the claimed "extensive press, radio and 
television coverage," signifying the national or international significance of the awards in the field. In 
addition, the Petitioner did not show that the ACE Awards are recognized on a national or international 
scale rather than locally limited to the New York area. 
Likewise, regarding the HOLA Awards, the Petitioner submitted documentation regarding the purpose 
and history of the organization. Specifically, HOLA "is New York's only organization devoted to the 
support and promotion of Latino performers into the mainstream of American culture while 
maintaining [its] unique cultural identity as Hispanics" and is "the nation's longest running active arts 
advocacy organization for Latino actors." In addition, the Petitioner provided screenshots from two 
websites, playbill.com and broadwayworld.com, announcing the upcoming awards ceremony. While 
the majority of the Petitioner's evidence relates to HOLA overall, the limited coverage of the awards 
ceremony on two websites is not reflective of a nationally or internationally recognized award for 
excellence. Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the HOLA Awards gamer attention at a level 
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 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
2 Id. 
3 The record also contains a screenshot from Wikipedia briefly summarizing the history of the ACE Awards without 
showing the national or international recognition of excellence in the field. 
3 
Matter of R-B-J-
of national or international significance. Moreover, the Petitioner did establish the recognition of the 
award for excellence in the field beyond HOLA and the New York surrounding area. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he received nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in his field of endeavor. Accordingly, we 
withdraw the findings of the Director for this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien'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 claims that he "was profiled extensively in the leading newspapers of the Dominican 
Republic." In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate published material about 
him in professional or major trade publications or other major media, as well as the title, date, and 
author of the material. 4 
Although the Petitioner claims that he was featured in articles published in El Nuevo Diario, Hoy, 
Listin Diario, Diario Libre, and Metro RD, the record does not support his assertions. Instead, the 
record reflects that the Petitioner provided screenshots of seven articles posted on five websites, such 
as elnuevodiario.com, diariolibre.com, hoy.com, listindiario.com, and metrord.do. In the case here, 
the Petitioner must demonstrate that the websites are major media. Again, the Petitioner did not 
establish that any of the claimed newspapers published articles about him. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted screenshots from bbc.com regarding the media profile of the 
Dominican Republic. However, none of the above websites are listed as major media sources in the 
country. Likewise, the Petitioner provided screenshots from allyoucanread.com relating to the top 30 
Dominican Republic newspapers and news media. Again, the above media websites are not included 
in the list. Moreover, the Petitioner presented screenshots from hoy.com pertaining to the newspaper, 
Hoy. The screenshots make no mention of hoy.com and do not otherwise reflect that the website is a 
major medium in his native country. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that any of the 
websites qualify as professional or major trade publications or other major media. 5 
Notwithstanding the above, as it relates to elnuevodiario.com, hoy.com, and listindiario.com, the 
screenshots are about the musicaLI I While the Petitioner is mentioned as performing in a 
role, the articles are not about the Petitioner. Articles that are not about a petitioner do not fulfill this 
regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe 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). Further, the 
Petitioner did not include the required authors of the articles. 
Moreover, the Petitioner provided a 2018 article posted on diariolibre.com that occurred after the filing 
of his initial petition. However, the Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the 
4 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7. 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7 (providing that evidence of published material in 
professional or major trade publications or in other major media publications about the petitioner should establish that the 
circulation ( on-line or in print) is high compared to other circulation statistics and show the intended audience). 
4 
Matter of R-B-J-
immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of filing and continuing through adjudication. 
See 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ). Further, the Petitioner submitted a 2017 article posted on diariolibre.com 
reflecting a review ofl lrather than published material about him. In addition, the Petitioner 
did not include the required author of the article. 
Finally, the Petitioner submitted two articles posted on metrord.do reflecting published material about 
him relating to his work. However, as discussed above, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that 
metrord.do is a professional or major trade publication or other major medium. Moreover, the 
Petitioner did not include the author for the 201 7 article. 
Because the Petitioner did not establish that his evidence meets the regulatory requirements, he did 
not demonstrate that he satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
The record reflects that the Petitioner performed as an actor in theatrical settings. Therefore, the 
Petitioner established that he fulfills this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien 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). 
The Petitioner argues that he meets this criterion based on his "critical role to.__ ________ _. 
for his role as the lead actor for the organization's most successful recent original production entitled 
I I' In addition, the Petitioner contends that he "played a central role" to the ! I I lbased on his performance for! I As it relates to a leading role, 
the evidence must establish that a petitioner is or was a leader. A title, with appropriate matching 
duties, can help to establish if a role is or was, in fact, leading. 6 Regarding a critical role, the evidence 
must demonstrate that a petitioner has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the 
outcome of the organizations or establishment's activities. It is not the title of a petitioner's role, but 
rather the performance in the role that determines whether the role is or was critical. 7 
The record reflects that he submitted a letter from~--------~ executive director ofO 
who indicated the Petitioner's ACE Award and Hola Award and claimed that "[w]ith these awards 
and all of the critical acclaim . . . he proved himself to be a critical member to the success ofn 
I ,I :::i_nd in turnD which has garnered even more attention since the success ofl :T 
Moreover, he presents a letter froml l founder ofl I wh~o-pr-a-is_e_d_t_h~e 
Petitioner for his role inl Jand asserted that he "can confidently say that [the 
Petitioner] performed in a critical role for the musical and for the theatre as well." However, the letters 
do not establish that the Petitioner held a leading position, nor do they contain specific information 
signifying his essential role for the theatres. 8 For instance, the letters did not describe the hierarchy 
6 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
7 Id. 
8 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 10 (stating that letters from individuals with personal 
5 
Matter of R-B-J-
of Dor D and explain where the Petitioner's position fit in the overall structure of the theatres. 
Moreover, while the letters acknowledged the Petitioner's awards, they did not demonstrate how his 
performances in the musicals contributed to the successes or standings of the theatres. 9 Further, 
repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. 
Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 
1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Although the letters 
confirm the Petitioner's performances in musicals, they do not contain detailed, probative information 
demonstrating the critical nature he performed for the theatres. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show that he satisfies this criterion. 
B. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Petitioner received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant 
visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying 
an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard - statute, regulations, 
and case law. Many Form 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior 
nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); 
IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 
F. Supp. at 1108, affd, 905 F. 2d at 41. Furthermore, our authority over the USCIS service centers, 
the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petition, is comparable to the relationship between a 
court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has approved a nonimmigrant 
petition on behalf of an individual, we are not bound to follow that finding in the adjudication of 
another immigration petition. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at 
*2. 
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 
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). 
9 The Petitioner also provided evidence reflectinr that he was nominated for a 2019 I I A ward as an outstanding 
supporting actor for[ 0 , as well as screenshots regarding reviews for the musicals. Again, the 
Petitioner did not establish how his nomination and reviews for the musical show his leading or critical role for the theatre. 
6 
Matter of R-B-J-
has not shown that the significance of his 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 section203(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 he is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the 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 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, the petitioner bears 
the burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of R-B-J-, ID# 4997670 (AAO Oct. 17, 2019) 
7