dismissed EB-1A Case: Acting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9895142 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 24, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an actor, 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 Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
satisfied three of the initial evidentiary criteria, as required, he did not show sustained national or 
international acclaim and demonstrate that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field 
of endeavor. In addition, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that he would 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
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 will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(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 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 tenn "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 recognition 
of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence , then he or she must provide 
sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain media , and 
scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements , we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits detennination 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. USCJS, 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); R(jal v. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D . Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner has performed as an actor on various television shows. 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). 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner fulfilled the following three criteria: 
awards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), published material at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), and leading or 
critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Although the record shows that the Petitioner meets the 
published material criterion, for the reasons discussed below, we do not concur with the Director's 
decision relating to the awards and leading or critical role criteria. 
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 concluded that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. In order to fulfill this criterion, a 
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 
1 See USCIS 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 ADll-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML /PolicyManual.html. 
2 Id. 
2 
The Petitioner claimed eligibili for this criterion based on the followin three awards: 1) 20130 
A ward for "Original Song 2 2008 A ward for "Best 
I I Performance," and 3) 2013 .__ _________ _, for ~-----~ Actor of 
the Year." 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 Director's dete1mination for this criterion. 
As indicated above, the Petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion based on a 20130Award 
for "Original Songl t The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires the alien to 
receive nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence "in the field of 
endeavor. "3 Here, the Petitioner seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability as an actor. 
However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that an award for an "original song" represents an award 
in his field of endeavor, acting. See Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (upholding a 
finding that competitive athletics and coaching are not within the same area of expertise because it is 
reasonable to interpret continuing to work in one's "area of extraordinary ability" as working in the 
same profession in which one has extraordinary ability, not necessarily in any profession in that field). 
As such, the Petitioner did not establish that his 2013 Inter Award qualifies for this criterion. 
Regarding the 2008 !Award for "Bestl I Performance," the record 
contains screenshots from a rumberos.net article that reported on the 2009 award ceremony.4 
However, the Petitioner did demonstrate how a single article constitutes a level of media coverage 
consistent with a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in the field. In fact, the 
article mainly reports oli !Internacional receiving the most awards and references the ceremony 
as "the fourth edition of the award" and "[t]he results of this award are the result of the popular vote, 
made through the site wwwl 1 lcom, from 10 December 2008 until 20 January 
this year" without any indication of the field's view for any of these recently established, popular vote 
awards, llt alone the Petitioner's specific I I award. 5 Here, the Petitioner did not show that 
his "Best ]Performance" award represents a nationally or internationally recognized award 
for excellence consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
As it pertains to his 2013~---------~for j ~ctor of the Year," the 
Petitioner submitted a photograph of a plaque. In addition, the Petitioner provided screenshots from 
a I I article entitled, "Know the difference between the Gold, Silver and Platinum I I I I' Specifically, the article states: 
This prize is which represents the birds of the city .... I ___ ___, D and in th._e_t-ai-1,....----------'( as an icon inherited from the first prize that was 
previously awarded at the festival The basis of these is wood. 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 6. 
4 The record also contains nearly identical recommendation letters from I I andl [ who confirmed 
the Petitioner's receipt of the award but did not provide any further information establishing the national or international 
significance of the award in the field. 
5 The photograph of the trophy indicates that the Petitioner received 1,362 popular votes. 
3 
A tthel IF estival, the Sil.Y!!!I ~esen~, one of the most outstanding 
awards granted by the public of the I •'------'~ to an artist. 
The Golden LJ means one of the most important prizes of thcl._ _____ ___, 
Festival and takes its name for the mineral with which it is bathed, so it is a prize of 
greater hierarchy with respect to the Silveri O I 
The Platinum I I is the maximum prize awarded iJ I as it is 
manufactured and delivered exclusively to artists who have an outstanding musical 
career. 
In the case here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he received a Goldenl~ _ ___,I fi urine with a 
wooden base as outlined in the article; rather he received a plaque. Furthermore, the .__ _ ____,....------,1 
article makes no mention of the Petitioner's plaque, nor does it show the significance of a 
I I Actor of the Year" award in the field. In addition, while the article discus~se-s-th-e~ 
relationship of the I I awards to the festival, the Petitioner did not establish that his I I I I Actor of the Year" I I represents a nationally or internationally 
recognized prize or award for excellence in the field beyond the festival. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he meets this criterion, and 
we withdraw the Director's decision for 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). 
As indicated earlier, the Director determined that the Petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. 
Relating to a leading role, the evidence must establish that the alien 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 an alien contributed in a way that is of significant 
importance to the outcome of the organization 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 For the reasons outlined below, the record does not reflect that the Petitioner provided 
sufficient documentary evidence showing that he fulfills this criterion; therefore, the Director's 
determination for this criterion will be withdrawn. 
The Director concluded that "[t]he letters froml 11 land,._____,,-,----------' 
I I all indicate that the etitioner is considered critical to their organizations and as holding al 
leadin role for The record reflects that the Petitioner submitted a letter from 
president and e~· ucer l_~--~7, who stated that the Petitioner 
"was part of the main cast of the Seri~~- __ ___,!,in which I I was the 
production company." Moreover, indicated that the Petitioner "has a leading role in 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
7 Id. 
4 
~--_.I and is critical to the success of the show" and ''-we are counting on [the Petitioner] to be 
available for future season's with " Furthermore, the Petitioner provided a 
letter from I I supervising produc who discussed that the Petitioner "has 
been playing a critical role of our productions .__ __ _. for~----" and the Petitioner "was 
selected to play to role of n ... the writers and producers of the show decided that [the Petitioner] 
should also play I ==I an antagonistic character in the stmy." 
In addition, the record includes other recommendation letters pointing out his role with I 
For instance, I I who stated that she "worked with [the Petitioner] on wh .... at_w_a_s_t_h_,e 
realization of the most recent series, I I. in which [she] worked as an acting 
coach." Moreover, ~----:..,_, __ _.indicated that the Petitioner "has contributed to the growth and 
success of the show .__ __ _." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires the alien to perform in a leading or critical role 
for "organizations or establishments." Here, the letters reference the Petitioner's roles with I , I 
a television show, rather demonstrating how he performed in a leading or critical role for an 
organization or establishment. Moreover, the Petitioner did not establish how a television show 
qualifies as an organization or establishment consistent with this regulatory criterion. Furthelmore, I 
the recommendation letters do not further elaborate and explain how the Petitioner's roles on 
D evidenced into a leading or critical role forl I orl I. 8 The letters, for instance, 
do not show that the Petitioner held a leadership position with the companies, nor do they articulate 
how he was responsible for their successes or standings. 
Similarly, the Petitioner argues on appeal that he "also performed in significant roles for the television 
show j t and "his performances as a leading character . . . are extremely 
significant, given the fact that this television show is aired on the topl !television 
network, I I' Although he presents evidence signifying his character role on the television 
show, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how this role demonstrates that he performed in a leading or 
critical for an organization or establishment, including I I The Petitioner, for example, did 
not show the leading nature of his television role to the network or that he was essential in contributing 
to the successes o~ I 
As it relates toe=] the Petitioner does not mention his relationship or role with the talent agency on 
appeal. Nevertheless, the record contains a letter from I president, who claimed 
that the Petitioner "has played a critical role for our organization and has established himself as one 
of the few actors that are internationally re
1
ogniyd for his talent and extraordinary ability." While 
I !listed several productions that contracted with the Petitioner, she did not provide 
~c, detailed information explaining how the Petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for 
L__J Repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of 
proof. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 
8 See USCIS 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). 
5 
41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). In addition, 
the Petitioner did not establish thatOenjoys a distinguished reputation. 9 
Because the Petitioner did not establish that he satisfied this criterion, we withdraw the Director's 
decision for 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 USC IS from denying 
an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard - statute, regulations, 
and case law. Many Form I-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. 724 F. Supp. 
at 1108, ajfd, 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. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 
(E.D. La. 2000). 
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 perfmming 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 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 section 203(b )(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not othe1wise 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). 
Although the Petitioner has performed as an actor, the record does not contain sufficient evidence 
establishing that he is among the upper echelon in his field. 
9 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10-11 (defining Merriam-Webster's Dictionary definition of 
"distinguished" as marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence). 
6 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 10 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. 
10 As the Petitioner has not established his extraordinary ability under section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act, we need not 
consider whether his entrance will substantially benefit prospectively the United States under section 203(b )(1 )(A)(iii) of 
the Act, and we reserve this issue. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required 
to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 
I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise 
ineligible). 
7