dismissed EB-1A Case: Acting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-H-A-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 28,2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an actor and voice-acting instructor, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in the arts. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(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 Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence. The Petitioner contends that he 
also meets the original contributions and critical role criteria, thereby meeting the evidentiary 
requirements for this classification. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act states: 
Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph 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 
Matter of A-H-A-
(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 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). Alternately, he or she must provide evidence that meets at least three 
of the 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. 201 0) 
(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 o.fChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is an actor who has performed in several films and television programs in Iran, and 
who serves as an instructor of voice acting for two acting schools. 1 As 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 found that the Petitioner met the criteria for lesser nationally or. 
1 
We will evaluate all evidence relating to his voice-acting achievements as both an actor and an instructor. We note that 
the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Adjudicaror's Fielq Manual (AFM) provides analogous guidance for 
athletes and coaches: 
In general, if a beneficiary has clearly achieved recent national or international acclaim as an athlete 
and has sustained that acclaim in the field of coaching/managing at a national level, adjudicators can 
consider the totality of the evidence as establishing an overall pattern of sustained acclaim and 
extraordinary ability such that we can conclude that coaching is within the beneficiary's area of 
expertise. 
AFM ch. 22.22(i)( I )(C) emphasis in original). 
2 
.
Matter of A-H-A-
internationally recognized prizes under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and high salary under 8 C.P.R.' 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends he also meets original contributions under 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii) and critical or h~ading role under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). We have reviewed 
all of the evidence in the record, and it does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies 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 Director found that the Petitioner meets the awards criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). The 
record supports the Director's finding that he satisfies this criterion as it reflects, for instance, that 
the Petitioner received awards for superior hosting and voice acting at the 
in 2009 and 2010. The Petitioner also submitted evidence demonstrating that he 
received the festival awards for '' and 
' though the record is unclear on the date the awards were conferred. 
Additionally, the record shows that, in 2005, the Petitioner received an award from 
for hosting and performing on a TV contest, and, in 2010, that he was honored with the first 
memorial plaque for by the 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signtficantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The Director also found that the Petitioner has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services in relation to others actors in his field under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The record, however, does not demonstrate that the Petitioner meets this criterion. He submitted a 
statement from the director of one of the media channels in the country, 
indicating that he earned four to five times more than other actors at He also provided 
several television acting and voice acting contracts that reflect similar earnings at other 
channels. However, the Petitioner did not sufficiently document the compensation of other actors in 
Iran to support his claim. While the record establishes the Petitioner's income, it does not include 
adequate information and evidence to determine how his earnings compare to the field at large. 
Without evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner has commanded a high salary in relation to 
others in his field, he has not established that he meets this regulatory 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). 
In the decision, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that his role for 
was leading or critical. Additionally, the Director found that the record did not establish that the 
2 
The record reflects that is the organization for Iran. 
3 
.
Matter of A-H-A-
organizations or establishments for which the Petitioner claimed to have performed in a leading or 
critical role had a distinguished reputation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits new evidence related to his work with the 
and renews his claim that his work for satisfies the critical role criterion. As 
evidence of his role with the Petitioner submitted a letter from its managing director , 
The letter notes that the Petitioner has worked on more than 170 projects for the 
organization and has been involved in its education sector. In general, a leading role is evidenced 
from the role itself, and a critical role is one in which a petitioner was responsible for the success or 
standing of the organization or establishment. The letter does not specify what position the 
Petitioner holds with or how it fits into the hierarchy of the organization to show that it is a 
leading role. Further, while states that the Petitioner's presence has resulted in 
"gaining much more prestige and reputation ," he does not clarify how the Petitioner's work was 
critical to the success and standing of the organization, nor does the record include adequate 
evidence to support his statement. As such, the record is insufficient to establish that the Petitioner 
performed in a leading or critical role for the organization. Furthermore , the record does not 
establish that possesses a distinguished reputation consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
The Petitioner also points to his long career with as evidence of performing in a leading or 
critical role for that organization. The Petitioner refers to the letters of appreciation for his work that 
the Director reviewed and_ he provides an additional letter from the manager of 
and advertising material related to the Petitioner's performances and 
appearances. indicates that the Petitioner has had a distinguished career as an actor and 
has been chosen several times as the best actor and most popular host and voice actor. However , the 
record does not support claims regarding the Petitioner ' s awards for talent and 
popularity; Furthermore, letter does not indicate that the Petitioner has held a leading 
role for or describe how his work was critical to the success and standing of the organization. 
Similarly, the promotional materials the Petitioner submits on appeal do not establish that his roles 
were leading or critical as they do not identify . the nature of his work or the prominence of his 
positions. Furthermore, it is unclear that the noted performances are related to his work for , as 
the organization is not identified on any of the promotional materials. Additionally, the record does 
not doc.ument reputation as an organization. Without additional evidence that the Petitioner 
has performed in a leading or critical role for a distinguished organization, the Petitioner has not 
established that he meets this regulatory criterion . 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific , scholarly. artistic, athletic . or business-related 
contributions a,[ major significance in the .field. 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner provided a certificate from the 
managing director of the indicating that, since 2009, the Petitioner 
has been one of the best acting instructors there. The Director considered the certificate and 
4 
.
Matter of A-H-A-
concluded that it was insufficient to· establish that the Petitioner's work constituted original 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
On. appeal, the Petitioner provided a second letter from in his capacity as the 
managing director of the In his letter, 
indicates that the Petitioner is a high quality instructor and has been elected by the 
students as the top instructor and teacher at the institute many times. The Petitioner also submitted 
documents related to · his membership in the as evidence of his 
versatility. 3 
The letters considered above primarily contain discussions of the Petitioner's work for particular 
organizations and attestations of his status in the field without providing specific examples of how 
those contributions rise to a level consistent with major s~gnificance iQ the field. U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services need not accept primarily ~onclusory statements. 1756. Inc. v. The US 
Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990). Without additional supporting evidence showing that 
his work has been unusually influential, has substantially impacted the field, or has otherwise risen 
to the level of original contributions of major significance in the field, the Petitioner has not 
established that he meets this regulatory criterion. See 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). 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 8 CF 
.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) . 
Although the Director did not find that the Petitioner met any other criteria, the record indicates that 
the Petitioner satisfies one additional criterion. Specifically, the Petitioner has demonstrated that his 
performances meet the criterion for display at artistic exhibitions or showcases under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii). For instance, the Petitioner performed as an actor in several television 'series 
broadcast on television including and 
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 1119-20.4 Nevertheless, we advise 
that we have reyiewed the record in the aggregate , concluding that it does not support a finding that 
3 
We note that the Petitioner is not claiming eligibility under the membership criterion set forth in 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204 .5(h)(3)(ii). 
4 
Further, as the Petitioner has not established his extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, we need 
not determine whether he is coming to "continue work in the area of extraordinary ability " under section 
203(b )( oc A)( i i). . 
5 
Matter of A-H-A-
the Petitioner has established the level of expertise required for the classification sought. For the 
foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualities for classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-H-A-, ID# 409898 (AAO July 28, 2017) 
6