dismissed EB-1A Case: Acting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 25, 2024 In Re: 31672126 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that while the Petitioner 
met the initial evidence requirements of the requested classification, the record did not establish that 
she had sustained national or international acclaim and was one of the small percentage at the top of 
her field. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F .R. § 103 .3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability, a petitioner (or anyone on the 
petitioner's behalf) must establish that they: 
• Have extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics; 
• Seek to enter the United States to continue work in their area of extraordinary ability; and that 
• Their entry into the United States will prospectively substantially benefit the United States. 
Extraordinary ability must be demonstrated by evidence of sustained national or international acclaim 
as well as extensive documentation that their achievements have been recognized in the field. Section 
203(b )(1) of the Act. 
The implementing regulation further states that 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." It also 
sets forth a multi-part analysis. A pet1t10ner can demonstrate international recogrnt10n of their 
achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized 
award). If such evidence is unavailable, then they must alternatively provide evidence that meets at 
least three of the ten listed criteria, which call for evidence about other awards they may have received, 
published material about them in qualifying media, and their authorship of scholarly articles, among 
other types of evidence. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2),(3). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination, assessing whether the record shows that the 
individual possesses the acclaim and recognition required for this highly exclusive immigrant visa 
classification. 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). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The 
Petitioner has worked as an actor in theater, television and film in her native Armenia, and inc::=J 
was named an Honored Artist of the Republic of Armenia. She intends to continue working as an 
actor in the United States. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she 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 four ofthe evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating to lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards, 
published material about her and her work, her participation as a judge of the work of others, and the 
display of her work at artistic exhibitions or showcases. But in his final merits determination, the 
Director determined that the evidence did not establish that the Petitioner had enjoyed sustained 
national or international acclaim and that she was one of the small percentage of actors at the top of 
the field. On appeal, the Petitioner submits new evidence and asserts that she also meets additional 
evidentiary criteria. In addition, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not notify her of some of 
the deficiencies in the originally submitted evidence, and did not conduct the final merits analysis in 
accordance with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy. After reviewing 
all of the evidence in the record, per the analysis below we agree with the Director's conclusion that 
the record does not establish that the Petitioner has the required sustained national or international 
acclaim for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability, or is one of the small percentage of 
actors at the top of the field. 
Because we agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner meets the four evidentiary criteria 
noted above, and thus that she meets the initial evidence requirements for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability, we need not consider the Petitioner's claims to additional criteria 
made on appeal. We will rather consider the evidence submitted in support of all of the claimed 
criteria in reviewing the Director's final merits determination. 
As noted above, once an individual has established that they meet the initial evidence requirement, we 
conduct a final merits determination. In a final merits determination, we examine and weigh the 
2 
totality of the evidence to determine whether an individual has sustained national or international 
acclaim and is one of the small percentage at the very top of their field of endeavor, and that their 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. As extraordinary 
ability is an elite level of accomplishment whose recognition necessarily entails a judgement call, it 
cannot be established through meeting at least three of the evidentiary criteria alone. The final merits 
determination is the ultimate statutory inquiry of whether the applicant has extraordinary ability as 
demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim. Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, at 395 
(2022). 
As an initial matter, we will not consider the new evidence offered by the Petitioner with her 
brief. Where, as here, a Petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been 
given an opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the 
first time on appeal. Matter ofSoriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter ofObaigbena, 19 I&N 
Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). In support of her submission of new evidence of published material about her, 
her activities as a judge of the work of other actors, and her performances, the Petitioner asserts that 
the Director went beyond the plain language of the corresponding evidentiary criteria when analyzing 
this evidence, and that she was therefore not provided with sufficient notice of the insufficiency of the 
evidence she initially submitted in the Director's request for evidence (RFE). But she makes these 
assertions in the context of the Director's final merits analysis, in which, as explained above, the 
overall requirement for the classification is applied, not that of the individual criteria. Thus the 
Director did not err in going beyond the plain language of the corresponding evidentiary criteria when 
conducting his final merits analysis, and we will not consider these assertions when evaluating the 
evidence below. Further, the Director's RFE provided a detailed analysis of the deficiencies in the 
initial evidence of published material about the Petitioner 1, and reminded her (in bold type) that in 
addition to meeting at least three of the evidentiary criteria, she must also establish that she possesses 
the high level of expertise required for the requested classification. 
In making that determination in his final merits analysis, the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's 
receipt of two nationally recognized awards in her field: the I for Best Actress, from 
the in 2012, and the Honored Artist of the Republic of Armenia 
in However, he noted that the Petitioner received both awards several years before the filing of 
her petition, and that her eligibility for the classification must be shown at the time of filing. While 
the evidence of the Petitioner's awards cannot be evaluated apart from the totality of the record, we 
agree that it does not aid in demonstrating her continuing acclaim and standing as one of the small 
percentage at the top of her field at the time her petition was filed. 
The Petitioner asserts in her brief that the Honored Artist award is a lifetime achievement award, and 
thus that "time does not obscure the value and/or significance of this award." Although Chapter 5, 
Article 34 of the section of the Armenian statute concerning honorary titles states that it is given to 
artists for "for their high mastery" and "great merit in the development of art," neither the statute nor 
the profiles of other actor recipients (some of whom were relatively young actors) show that it is 
comparable to a lifetime achievement award honoring decades of contributions. 2 And while it 
1 The Director acknowledged in the RFE that the criteria relating to the Petitioner's participation as a judge of the work of 
others and the display of her work at artistic exhibitions had been met. 
2 Article 28 indicates that the honorary title of People's Artist of the Republic of Armenia, which is granted to artists "for 
3 
demonstrates a certain level of national recognition for the Petitioner's mastery and merit up until the 
time it was awarded, it cannot show continuing recognition beyond that point. 
Regarding the evidence of the Petitioner's many performances in theater, television, and film, the 
Director concluded that it demonstrated her steady work as a professional actress for three decades, 
but did not show that she stood out among her peers or was the leading actress or "main draw" of these 
performances. In responding to this conclusion on appeal, the Petitioner refers to mainly new 
evidence, which we will not consider on appeal, but also some of the previously submitted evidence. 
This previously submitted evidence shows that her roles in movies and recent television shows have 
been primarily supporting. For example, an article published on the website armlur.am on I I
D 2015 discusses, in part, her role on the television sitcom I I but states only that she appeared 
on the show and played a cook. Other evidence in the record, includin a letter from fellow actor M­
P-, shows that she acted in movies including While 
the former was Armenia's submission to the 2001 Academy Awards for 
it was not selected as a nominee and was poorly reviewed in Variety, and in any case the Petitioner 
did not play a leading role. As for the latter film, M-P- lauds the Petitioner's performance in his letter 
and in three media articles about the film, but the record does not show that this film was either 
commercially successful or critically acclaimed. We note that the evidence does not demonstrate that 
the websites on which these articles were published are prestigious or well-known at the national or 
international level such that they evidence widespread acclaim for this role. 
The Petitioner has played leadin or starrin roles in several of the theater roductions in which she 
has participated for the ______________________ since 2004, as 
stated in the letter from the theater's director. She performed at least one of these plays, 0 as a solo 
performer in 2021, and this performance was singled out by the Director of the I I for 
praise in an article published on the website aravot.com on I I 2021. But the evidence of 
the reputation and distinction of the theater and its troupe of actors, which includes descriptions of its 
history and commendation/appreciation certificates from a community group and the county of
I I does not show that the theater is considered a prestigious or elite venue such that the 
Petitioner's performances there, leading or otherwise, place her amongst the small percentage at the 
top of the field. 
As already mentioned, the record includes several articles published in Armenian newspapers and 
websites that are interviews of her or otherwise discuss her and her work as an actor. In response to 
the Director's statement regarding the number of articles published about her during her lengthy 
career, the Petitioner asserts that the quality of the evidence, including the articles about her, should 
be a determining factor in the final merits determination. We first note that section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of 
the INA requires "extensive documentation" of the petitioner's acclaim and recognition. In addition, 
the quality of media articles as evidence of sustained acclaim and recognition as one of the small 
percentage at the top of the field is dependent upon the content of the articles and the prestige and 
reach of the medium. While the articles mainly focus on the Petitioner and her career, discussing 
previous roles she played and her future plans, many were published in media of limited reach, such 
as Pakagits Daily, Interlocutor ofArmenia, TV Mall Weekly, and TV Channel. While other media in 
their mastery ... for creating high art... and for significant contribution to the development of art," appears to be more 
analogous to a lifetime achievement award, although the index to this chapter also mentions "highest titles" and medals 
granted by the Republic of Armenia. 
4 
which articles about the Petitioner and her work as an actor were published have broader popularity, 
such as Tert.com, the totality of this evidence, when considering both quality and quantity, is not 
indicative of the widespread acclaim required for the requested classification. 
The Petitioner also asserts that the Director's conclusions re ation as a jur member 
in the 2020 and 2021 editions of the of 
Painting, Recitation and Theatrical Art held by the went beyond the plain 
language of the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). As noted above, in his analysis as 
part of the final merits determination, the Director correctly considered whether the Petitioner's 
selection for this activity was based on her established and sustained acclaim, and whether her judging 
of the work of children resulted in further acclaim. While the Petitioner's willingness to lend her 
expertise to the development of young actors is laudable, we agree with the Director's conclusion that 
the record does not show that it appreciably contributed to her national or international acclaim and 
standing in her field. 
The Petitioner has enjoyed a lengthy career as an actor in her native country, and has at times in that 
career achieved a certain level of acclaim for her work at the national level. But the record does not 
establish that the Petitioner has enjoyed a level of commercial or critical recognition for her work as 
an actor that reflects that she is one of the small percentage at the top of her field. 
III. CONCLUSION 
We have reviewed the entire record and conclude that it does not establish that the Petitioner has the 
sustained acclaim and standing in her field required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already 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 "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 section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise 
demonstrate that she is one of the small percentage who have 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5