dismissed EB-1A Case: Acting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 20605387 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN . 1, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition , concluding that although the record 
demonstrated that the Petitioner met the initial evidentiary requirements for this classification, it did 
not establish the Petitioner's eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability . 
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)(l) 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 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 
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 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is an actress who works in the Chinese film and television industry. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner 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). The Petitioner claimed to meet four of these criteria, and the Director 
concluded that she submitted evidence to satisfy three of them. Specifically, the Director determined 
that the Petitioner met the criteria relating to lesser nationally recognized awards, published materials 
in major media, and commercial success. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii) and (x). We will not 
disturb the Director's determinations with respect to these criteria. 
After determining that the Petitioner satisfied three of the regulatory criteria, the Director proceeded 
to a final merits determination. Based on an evaluation of the totality of the evidence, the Director 
concluded that the record did not show the Petitioner's sustained national or international acclaim and 
did not demonstrate that she is at the very top of her field of endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in conducting a multi-part analysis and final 
merits determination and cites to Kazarian, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). The Petitioner further 
asserts that the Director's decision is contrary to the plain language of the regulatory language, arguing 
that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires only that she provide evidence of a qualifying 
major, internationally recognized award or evidence that satisfies at least three of the ten alternate 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). She further contends that since she has met the minimum 
required evidentiary criteria, the petition should be approved. 
The Petitioner further claims that the Ninth Circuit Court's decision in Kazarian supports her position. 
Specifically, she maintains that, according to Kazarian, if an applicant has satisfied at least three of 
the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), "he should win" and if "he has met 2 or less, 
he should lose." In addition, she states that "[n ]owhere in Kazarian v. USCIS does 9th Circuit rule 
2 
that meeting 3 types of evidence does not qualify for extraordinary abilities." The Petitioner is 
mistaken in her reading of Kazarian, which does in fact set forth the multi-part analysis referenced 
above, in which eligibility can only be established if a petitioner first meets the initial evidence 
requirements of a qualifying major internationally recognized award or at least three of the ten criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Kazarian decision does not state that meeting three of these 
criteria establishes eligibility for this classification. Rather, Kazarian discusses a two-part review 
where the evidence is first counted and then, if the initial evidence requirements are fulfilled, 
considered in the context of a final merits determination to determine whether a given petitioner is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor consistent with the 
statute and regulations for this restrictive classification. 
Therefore, for the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that the Director erred in 
proceeding to a final merits determination. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In a final merits determination, we examine and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine 
whether the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that her achievements have been recognized in 
the field through extensive documentation. The record, however, does not demonstrate that her 
achievements rise to a level of a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. 
See H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). In this matter, the Director determined that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that she meets this very high standard. On appeal, the Petitioner has 
not addressed the Director's decision beyond objecting to its inclusion of a multi-part analysis and 
final merits determination. Upon our de novo review of the record, and for the reasons discussed 
below, we have reached the same conclusion as the Director. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner has maintained a professional acting career in China's television 
and film industries. As mentioned above, the Petitioner has won awards for acting, been featured in 
media publications in China, and has experienced some commercial success. The record, however, 
does not demonstrate that her achievements are reflective of a "career of acclaimed work in the field" 
as contemplated by Congress. See id. 
The Petitioner has established that she has received five acting awards from national performing arts 
entities in China. In 2010, she received the Television Drama Actress award 
at thee=J China Television! I Awards, as well as the ___ TV Actress award at 
the China TV Art Festival, which the Petitioner claimed "is the highest award for a 
television drama performing actress in China." The record reflects that the events received major 
media recognition in Beijing Daily as well as media coverage in other Chinese publications. The 
evidence establishes that these awards are nationally recognized and that her receipt of these awards 
garnered the Petitioner some national acclaim in China. However, she received these awards 
approximately 10 years prior to filing the petition and must demonstrate that she sustained this level 
of acclaim and remains at the very top of her field. 
For her performance in the television series I the Petitioner 
received the I I Actress award at the Television Award of China Radio 
3 
and Television Grand Prize in 2011. The award is described in the record as "the only government 
award for Chinese TV series," and documentation submitted indicates that the award is issued 
biennially. Although the record demonstrates some media coverage of these awards, the record does 
not include evidence that the award ceremony or the winners received media attention from major 
media or entertainment industry publications and does not otherwise establish to what extent this 
award contributed to the Petitioner's sustained national acclaim. 
The Petitioner also provided evidence that she received the Award of China Most 
Favored Actress at the China I TV Festival in 2012. The Petitioner submitted search 
result statistics from Google for this award as well as a list of previous award winners from Baidu 
Encyclopedia, 1 noting that several of the past award winners are internationally renowned for their 
work. The record, however, does not demonstrate that the Petitioner received significant media 
coverage as a result of winning the award. Further, the record lacks evidence establishing the level of 
national acclaim associated with this achievement, or to what degree such acclaim was sustained, 
given that her next award, a China Film Performing Arts Institute Award, was received nearly seven 
years later inl 2019. While her receipt of the Most Favored Actress at the Chinal I I TV Festival garnered her some attention from the field, she has not shown that her receipt of 
this award resulted in or contributed to her sustained national or international acclaim. 
Regarding her China Film Performing Arts Institute Award, discussed above, the Petitioner submitted 
evidence demonstrating that this accolade is awarded to individuals who played roles in films "in the 
immediate past two years." According to the selection criteria, candidates for this award must also 
have achieved "excellent results in the new film performance" in either a leading or supporting role, 
and were required to submit an academic article summarizing the creative process of their role. The 
Petitioner again relied on the user-edited online encyclopedia site Baidu for information pertaining to 
past award winners, but provided insufficient evidence demonstrating that this competition is 
prestigious or well-known such that this award was nationally or internationally recognized and 
brought acclaim of that scope to the Petitioner. 
Overall, the evidence related to the Petitioner's awards establishes that she has received industry 
recognition based on her performances in television and in film, as well as some major media 
recognition, specifically as a result of herl I Awards received in 2010. The record 
demonstrates that she received all but one of her acting awards eight or more years prior to the filing 
of the petition in 2020, while the significance of her one more recent award has not been established. 
For these reasons, the evidence related to her awards does not demonstrate her sustained national 
acclaim in her field and indicate that she is currently among that small percentage who have risen to 
the very top of the field. 
Regarding published material about her, the Director determined that while the Petitioner submitted 
ample evidence demonstrating that she received media coverage within China, the record lacked 
evidence of major media coverage outside of China and internationally. Moreover, upon review, we 
note that many of the submitted articles were not supported by sufficient independent evidence to 
establish that the publications qualified as major media, as the Petitioner relied primarily on the 
publications' own websites, without providing objective evidence that such publications enjoy high 
1 We note that Baidu, similar to Wikipedia, is an online, open source, user-edited encyclopedia. 
4 
circulation or distribution in comparison in relation to others, or that they are professional or major 
trade media. 
Even if we determined that the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence to establish that all or most of 
the submitted articles had appeared in major media, the evidence does not establish that the articles 
published over the course of a decade-long career in the film and television industry are consistent 
with the sustained national or international acclaim necessary for this highly restrictive classification. 
See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. The submitted media coverage shows that the Petitioner has 
received media recognition for certain roles and projects during her career but does not demonstrate 
that she has enjoyed sustained national acclaim. The Petitioner works in a high-profile industry in 
which most, if not all, projects receive media coverage to some extent. Without evidence that sets her 
apart from others in this field, she has not established how the submission of the published articles 
about her demonstrates that she is among "that small percentage who [has] risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The commentary for the proposed regulations 
implementing section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high 
standard be set for aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the 
petitioner to present more extensive documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 
Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). 
Regarding the Petitioner's commercial success, the Petitioner provided evidence reflecting the 
commercial success of ______ a 2018 Chinese film in which she appeared. The box 
office ratings submitted demonstrate that this film has been widely viewed, and accordingly the record 
reflects that the Petitioner has achieved some degree of commercial success. However, the Petitioner 
does not offer evidence demonstrating that she has been recognized in the field for this success. For 
example, the Petitioner does not offer evidence showing how this film's commercial success sets her 
apart from that of the success of other films, and therefore other actors in her field of endeavor. 
Beyond the three criteria determined by the Director that the Petitioner satisfied, discussed above, we 
consider additional documentation in the record in order to determine whether the totality of the 
evidence demonstrates eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. Here, we find that the 
evidence does not establish that the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim and is 
among the small percentage of the top of her field. 
The Petitioner submitted evidence that she served as a juror for the Youth Film F es ti val 
in 201 7. The Petitioner, however, did not establish that her work on the judging committee of this 
youth film festival reflects a career of acclaimed work in the field or indicative of the required 
sustained national or international acclaim. See H.R. Rep. No. 101-723 at 59 and section 203(b)(l)(A) 
of the Act. She did not show, for example, that this single judging instance places her among the small 
percentage at the very top of her field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The Petitioner did not demonstrate 
how her judging experience compares to others at the top of the field, that the committee included 
only nationally acclaimed artists, or that the judging committee members received significant 
recognition in the field as a result of their participation. 
The record as a whole, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Petitioner's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. The record reflects that the Petitioner has enjoyed a career as a film 
and television actress, is regarded as a talented performer, and has received some industry and press 
5 
recognition with respect to a few of her projects over the years. However, the Petitioner seeks a highly 
restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals who are at the top of their respective fields. 
USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet 
the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability." Matter of Price, 
20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). While the Petitioner need not establish that there is no 
one more accomplished to qualify for the classification sought, we find the record insufficient to 
demonstrate that she has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage 
at the top of her field. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
III. CONCLUSION 
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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6