dismissed EB-1A Case: Acting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF P-B-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE : OCT. 22, 2019 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner , an actress , 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 Texas Service Center denied the Form I-140 , Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker , 
concluding that the Petitioner had not satisfied any of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which she must 
meet at least three. 
On appeal , the Petitioner presents a brief, arguing that she 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 achievements 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 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 
Matter of P-B-
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 indicates that she has performed in plays, films, and sitcoms in the United States. 1 
Because she 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). 
In denying the petition, as indicated above, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet 
any of the initial evidentiary criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she fulfills four 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. 
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 Petitioner argues that her "receipt of 2016 Best of New York award clearly qualifies [her] under 
this criterion." In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that she received the 
1 According to the Petitioner's Form 1-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, she last entered 
the United States on September 22, 2016, on an H-IB nonimmigrant visa to work as a project engineer forc=J 
I 1 !in ! ! New York. Moreover, the Petitioner provided a statement indicating that she 
"previously had a successful career in engineering, but now [she has] realized that [her] heart belongs to acting, and this 
is what [she] intend[s] to do full time from now on." 
2 
Matter of P-B-
prizes or awards, and they are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of 
endeavor. 2 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. 3 
At initial filing, the Petitioner asserted that one her films "was nominated for the 
category Best of New York award at the ~------~NY in 2016." The Petitioner 
also submitted a document entitled, "Best ofNew York," reflectin~----~as one of the "Films 
to be Screened" at the .__ ______ _, However, the evidence does not show that either she or 
the film received a "Best of New York" award. Moreover, the Petitioner did not establish that the 
claimed film nomination is tantamount to her receiving a prize or award. In addition, the document 
does not support the Petitioner's assertion that I lwas nominated for a "Best of New 
York" award. 
Notwithstanding the above, the description of this type of evidence in the regulation provides that the 
focus should be on "the alien's" receipt of the awards or prizes, as opposed to his or her employer's 
receipt of the awards or prizes. 4 Even if the film garnered the award, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
her "receipt" of it consistent with this regulatory criterion. In addition, the Petitioner did not provide 
supporting evidence demonstrating that a "Best of New York" award is nationally or internationally 
recognized for excellence in the field. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show that she meets 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 eligibility for this criterion for the first time on appeal based on an article posted 
on broadwayworld.com. In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate published 
material about her in professional or major trade publications or other major media, a~ we)) as the title] 
date, and author of the material. 5 The article, however, is about a play starting at the .... L _____ __,_ 
I I While the Petitioner is mentioned one time as one of the actors, the article is 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 *l, *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 or identify 
the required author of the article. 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 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. 
3 Id. 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 6. 
5 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7. 
3 
Matter of P-B-
In addition, as evidence of the status ofbroadwayworld.com, the Petitioner submitted screenshots from 
wisdomdigital.com highlighting that "more than 100,000 users have signed up for the Safari Push, and 
another 100,000 for Mobile Alerts." The Petitioner, however, did not show the significance of the 
figures or explain how such data reflects status as a major medium. 6 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner contends that she provided "expert testimony" that "clearly qualifies [her] under this 
criterion." In order to meet 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. 7 
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 in the field. 
The record reflects that she provided four recommendation letters that confirmed her participation in 
projects and praised her talents and abilities. For instance, the letters state that the Petitioner "was cast 
for our movies because she has a unique acting style unlike other actors, brings the role to life with 
depth, take direction well and very puntual [sic]" I I, "is a very talented 
and dedicated person who has real talent" I l "[is] a wonderful actor - real, spontaneous, 
and vulnerable" I, l and "lend he[ r] acting skills and personality to a script that came from 
hard work and heart" I ~."8 However, having a diverse, unique, or special skill set 
is not a contribution of major significance in-and-of-itself Further, the record must be supported by 
evidence that the Petitioner has already used those skills and talents to impact the field at a significant 
level, which she has not shown. Moreover, the letters do not demonstrate the Petitioner's impact 
beyond the limited projects in which she performed or participated. 9 
Here, the Petitioner's letters do not contain specific, detailed information identifying her original 
contributions and explaining the unusual influence her work has had on the overall field. Letters that 
specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field and its 
impact on subsequent work add value. 10 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics and use 
hyperbolic language do not add value, and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form 
6 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7 (indicating that evidence of published material in 
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). 
7 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9 (finding that although funded and published work may 
be "original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of major significance). 
8 The Petitioner submitted a fifth letter from I I who indicated that she is scheduled to appear in an 
upcoming play. 
9 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9; see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding 
a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a 
whole). 
10 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
4 
Matter of P-B-
the basis for meeting this criterion. 11 Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory 
statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that she has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
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 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. 12 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. 13 
On appeal, the Petitioner ar ues that she "submitted [a] signed agreement with renowned Executive 
Producer of the A wards in New Y orkj l confirming [her] 
leading and critical role with ~-----~ a leading talent management and entertainment 
production company." A review of the "Personal Management Agreement," however, reflects 
execution and signature in January 2018, after the initial filing of the petition. The Petitioner must 
establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time 
of filing and continuing through adjudication. See 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ). Hence, the Petitioner did 
not demonstrate that she performed in a leading or critical role at the time she filed her petition. 
Notwithstanding, the agreement reflects representation ofl I on behalf ofl Ito act 
as the manager for the Petitioner as an artist "as it relates to acting, performing, modeling, 
spokesperson, etc." Here, the Petitioner did not show how being a contracted artist shows a leading 
or critical role forl I The agreement provides no indication of a leadership position within 
I I nor does it demonstrate that the Petitioner performed in an essential capacity, 
contributing to the success or standing of the company. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not establish thatl I enjoys a distinguished reputation. 14 
While the Petitioner provided screenshots froml ts website claiming it is a "Leading 
Talent Management and Entertainment Production Company," she did not submit independent, 
corroborating evidence showing its "leading" status. For example, the Petitioner did not include 
evidence showing the general field's view of the company, how its reputation compares to similar 
talent companies, or how its successful representation of artists relates to others, signifying a 
distinguished reputation consistent with the regulatory criterion. 
11 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, affd in palt 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters that repeat the regulatory 
language but do not explain how an individual's contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish 
original contributions of major significance in the field). 
12 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
13 Id. 
14 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005 .1, supra, at 10-11 ( defining Merriam-Webster's Dictiona1y definition 
of"distinguished" as marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence). 
5 
Matter of P-B-
Finally, the Petitioner also contends that she "played a leading role in the play I t which 
won [a] 20170Award." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires the role to be for 
"organizations or establishments." Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how a play qualifies as an 
organization or establishment consistent with this regulatory criterion. Further, while the previously 
mentioned broadwayworld.com article mentioned her as one of several actors in the play, the article 
does not indicate that she performed in a leading role. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show that she satisfies this criterion. 
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 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 she is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(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. 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 P-B-, ID# 4596103 (AAO Oct. 22, 2019) 
6