dismissed EB-1A Case: Acting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6081405 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 24, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , an actress , 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements of at least three of the criteria listed 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x). 
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 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 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner performs as an actress with theater ensembles in I I as well in television and 
movie productions, and intends to continue in this career if granted lawful permanent resident status. 
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 Director found that the Petitioner met one of the evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating to commercial success in the performing arts. We disagree, 
and will withdraw the Director's decision regarding that criterion as detailed below. On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that she also meets the evidentiary criteria relating to five other criteria. After 
reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that she does not meet the initial evidentiary 
requirement of 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 evidence establishes that the Petitioner received a 20 J 7-1 81 1 ~ IA ward in the category 
of j !" for her work inl I for the0Theatre Company 
in! I. However, the Director noted in her decision that this award is regional in nature, and the 
evidence indicates that consideration for the I . I Awards is limited to productions within 
the city limits otj I 1 On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that a national or international award for 
theater productions does not exist, and that "the most renowned award, the Tony award, is also a 
regional award." However, it is not geographic scope of a prize or award that is qualifying under this 
criterion, but its recognition at the national or international level. As the Petitioner notes, the Tony 
awards are renowned and recognized far beyond the borders of New York. The evidence regarding 
thQ awards is limited to publications based in the I O I area, and there is no indication of their 
recognition in the theater community at the national or international level. We note that even the 2004 
article from The Guardian which proclaims thatl I is ' ~-------------~ 
1 While the Director's decision states that consideration is limited to "productions within 50 miles o~ !s city center," 
we refer to Exhibit 2 of the Pep.ti.ill;ier's response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), which appears to be Section 
IV of the official rules for theLJAwards. 
2 
makes no mention of the Oawards. And the article which appeared in La Nacion in Argentina, 
further discussed below, mentions theDawards but focuses on the Petitioner's career and receipt of 
the award. Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or _fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
The Petitioner bases her claim to this criterion on her nomination and selection as an ensemble member 
ofl I In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) and again on appeal, she 
submits a copy the ensemble's membership criteria, which primarily include previous work with the 
company and the support of three active ensemble members. It further states that election to 
membership requires 75% of the vote of the active members. This evidence does not demonstrate that 
previous service as an actor withl I is an outstanding achievement, or that the active 
members who nominate and vote on membership are recognized national or international experts. 
Therefore, this criterion has not been met. 
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 classification 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) 
In his decision, the Director incorrectly states that neither the text nor an English translation or an 
article appearing in the Argentine newspaper La Nacion were provided. To the contrary, this evidence 
was included in the Petitioner's response to the Director's RFE, and establishes that the article is about 
her and her work as an actress. Additional evidence submitted with this article is sufficient to establish 
that La Nacion is a major medium in Argentina. 
The record also includes evidence of articles published in the I ~- I I, 
and other I !publications. As noted by the Petitioner, many of these include mention of 
the petitioner and comment upon her performance in a particular role. In her appeal brief: the 
Petitioner focuses on one district court decision, Noroozi v. Napolitano, 905 F.Supp.2d. 535, 545 
(S.D.N.Y. 2012), which was cited by the Director in his decision in support of his finding that articles 
about a play in which she performed are not about the Petitioner. The Petitioner notes that the 
petitioner in that case was an Iranian table tennis player, and that the comparison with her petition 
ignores the collaborative nature of theater. However, the other district court decision referenced in the 
Director's decision, Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at*l, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) 
presents a similar instance of an actor in a Cirque du Soleil show and makes a similar finding. 
Therefore, we agree with the Director's statement of the general proposition that articles about a show 
are not about an individual actor in that show for purposes of this criterion. 
We note that several of the articles presented here, however, focus on the Petitioner's role in ._I __ __. 
I t in which she played the title role and was one of two actors apfearing on stage. For example, 
an article date~2017 and published in thel O _ reviews the play, and while it 
describes the ~atre, the playwright and the plot of the play, several paragraphs include 
3 
mentions of the Petitioner and praise her performance. In addition, another article published in the 
same newspaper onl 12017, '~--------------~ includes a separate 
paragraph about each of the ten actors named, including the Petitioner. The record also includes 
evidence which establishes that the I I is considered to be a major medium. 2 As such, 
based upon our review of the qualifying articles described above, we withdraw the Director's decision 
regarding this criterion and find that Petitioner has submitted evidence to meet its requirements. 
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) 
In order to meet this criterion, a petitioner must establish both the distinguished reputation of a certain 
organization or establishment and the nature of the role they played for that organization or 
establishment. If 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. 
The Petitioner references several reference letters from leaders at theater companies where she has 
performed as an actress, and states that she has "performed leading roles as an actress is [sic] several 
I I orranizatlons with a distinguished reputation." One such letter was submitted by the artistic 
director of Theatre, who states that "every actor on our stage plays a leading role in our 
organization ... " While this letter indicates that the Petitioner made contributions to the theatre's 
performance of I I in 2016 by translating text and songs intol I and performing them on 
stage, it does not suggest that she played a leading role forl frheatre's overall organization. 
Actors are undoubtedly necessary for theatre productions, but this letter does not establish that the 
Petitioner was a leader in the company's overall organization. 
Similarly, a letter from the executive director ofl !Theatre Company notes the Petitioner's work 
inl I in which she performed ~-----------------~ The 
Petitioner clearly played a leading role in this production, which was well-received and awarded, and 
the executive director notes that she also assisted in fond-raising for the company and "collaborates 
with the company in ongoing new-play devropment work ... " However, here again there is no 
indication that she served as a leader for Theatre Company overall. 
Another reference letter was submitted by the artistic director of I I Theatre Company's 
young adult program, who notes that the Petitioner's bilingual ability made her "an essential part of 
makingl I a success with our student audience." But the Petitioner's performance of an 
important role in one ofl !Theatre Company's productions does not demonstrate that she 
played a leading role for the company. 
The Petitioner states in her brief that actors are not employees of theatres and have no decision-making 
authority in the operation of these organizations, but nevertheless "are instrumental in establishing the 
reputation of a theatre." She farther asserts that our interpretation of the regulation "would prevent 
any theatre actor from being able to meet this criteria [sic]." However, we note that under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4), where a petitioner can establish that the criteria do not apply to their 
2 Similar evidence was not submitted about thel land other periodicals and websites in which articles 
about the Petitioner appeared. Those articles therefore do not qualify under this criterion. 
4 
occupation, they may submit comparable evidence. Here, the Petitioner has claimed and submitted 
evidence under six criteria, and has not claimed that evidence of her leading performances as an actress 
should be considered to be comparable to that required under this criterion. Further, while the evidence 
does establish that the Petitioner is a member of at least one organization,I I it does not 
demonstrate that she plays a leading or critical role, beyond that of other ensemble members, for that 
organization. Accordingly, we find that the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x) 
As noted above, the Director found that the Petitioner meets this criterion. Altougl he did not explain 
the basis for this finding, we note that the record includes two letters, from Theatre Company 
andl I which describe the relative commercial success of two productions in which the 
Petitioner played a leading role. Specifically, the letter fromOindicates thatl I generated 
single ticket sales in excess of double the average of the three other productions in that season, while 
I I indicates thaU learned more than triple the revenue of its next highest 
grossing production for the year. However, we note that the record indicates that these are both 
relatively small theater companies, and that the Petitioner does not compare the figures referenced, 
$42,346 and $81,940 respectively, to the gross receipts of productions by other small theater 
companies, larger regional companies or Broadway productions. The evidence is therefore 
insufficient to establish the Petitioner's commercial success relative to others involved in similar 
pursuits in the performing arts. 3 We withdraw the Director's finding regarding this criterion and find 
that it has not been met. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As discussed above, we find that the Petitioner meets the requirements of only one of the criteria 
claimed. Although she claims to meet an additional criteria on appeal, relating to contributions of 
major significance, we need not reach this additional issue. Because the Petitioner cannot meet the 
initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), we reserve this issue.4 
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 
3 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted With Certain I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14., pg. 12 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https: / /www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/P o licyManual.html. 
4 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach). 
5 
has not shown that the significance of her work as an actress 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 otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has 
garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and that she 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 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