dismissed EB-1A Case: Acting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7864739 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG . 25, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (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 the Petitioner had 
not satisfied any of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
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 claims to have performed as an actor in movies and television in Russia. Because 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 determined that the Petitioner did not fulfill any of the initial 
evidentiary criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he meets five criteria. After reviewing all 
of the evidence in the record, we conclude that the record 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) 
In order to fulfill this criterion, a petitioner must demonstrate that he received the prizes or awards, 
and they are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor.1 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.2 
The Petitioner did not initially indicate eligibility for this criterion. However, in response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner asserted that "many projects that [he] played 
major roles in were awarded prestigious nationally recognized awards" and listed awards received by 
a television show, movie, and sitcom. Moreover, the Petitioner claimed that he garnered two awards 
for his acting achievements: "Diploma from the Russian theatre festival named after I I I I 2011" and "Diploma o~ I theatre festival named after 
2010." ~-----~ 
On appeal, the Petitioner makes the identical assertions that he made in response to the RFE without 
identifying specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal, or even 
referencing the Director's decision on this issue. Furthermore, while he states that "[b]ased on the 
1 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 ADll-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/po I icymanual/HTM L/Po I icyManual. htm I. 
2 Id. 
2 
evidence submitted, [he] has satisfied the requirements of 8 CFR § 204.5(h)(3)(i)," the Petitioner does 
not identify the evidence. 
Moreover, the record does not contain documentation supporting the Petitioner's claims of any of the 
television shows, movies, and sitcoms receiving any prizes or awards, let alone nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. Regardless, even if these shows and 
movies garnered the awards, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires the "alien's receipt" 
rather than a show, movie, or sitcom's receipt.3 In addition, the record does not reflect evidence to 
corroborate his assertions regarding his receipt of diplomas from the theatre festivals. Moreover, the 
Petitioner did not submit documentation, nor did he demonstrate, the national or international 
recognition of the diplomas as prizes or awards for excellence in the field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that he 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 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 order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate published material about him in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media, as well as the title, date, and author of 
the material.4 Again, the Petitioner did not initially claim eligibility for this criterion and makes the 
same arguments on appeal that he claimed in response to the Director's RFE, without identifying 
specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal, or even referencing 
the Director's decision on this issue. Furthermore, the Petitioner again indicates "[b]ased on the 
evidence submitted," but does not identify the evidence. 
Nevertheless, the record contains snapshots of website pages claiming to be from kinopoisk.ru, kino­
teatr.ru, ivi.tv, ruskino.ru, lifeactor.ru, imdb.com, vashdosug.ru, kinomania.ru, and etvnet.com that 
show various biography data, such as name, date of birth, and film credits. The snapshots, however, 
do discuss the Petitioner regarding his work. As such, the Petitioner did not establish that the evidence 
reflects published material about him relating to his work consistent with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not include the required title, date, and author of the material. 
Furthermore, although he attached "Attendance statistics" to each snapshot, the Petitioner did not 
identify the source of the claimed website views and visitors, nor did he demonstrate the significance 
of the figures, signifying professional or major trade publications or other major media.5 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 6 (indicating that 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 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7. 
5 See USCIS 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). 
3 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show that he satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
This regulatory criterion requires an alien to show that he has acted as a judge of the work of others in 
the same or an allied field of specialization.6 Once again, the Petitioner did not initially claim 
eligibility for this criterion and makes the same arguments on appeal that he claimed in response to 
the Director's RFE, without identifying specifically any erroneously conclusion of law or statement 
of fact for the appeal, or even referencing the Director's decision on this issue. Furthermore, the 
Petitioner again indicates "[b]ased on the evidence submitted," but does not identify the evidence. 
Nonetheless, the record reflects a letter from I I general producer, who indicated that the 
Petitioner worked as "casting director" and "conducted castings and was a member of jury committee 
of creative group and evaluated actor skills of potential candidates for participation projects." The 
letter, however, makes broad statements without providing probative, detailed, and specific 
information, such as identifying the actor's names, project titles, and dates. Without further 
information or corroborating documentation, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the letter is 
sufficient to establish that he judged the work of others consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
As such, the Petitioner did not show that he fulfills this criterion. 
111. CONCLUSION 
We find that the Petitioner does not satisfy any of the criteria regarding to awards, published material, 
and judging. Although he claims eligibility for two additional criteria on appeal, relating to original 
contributions of major significance at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) and leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi ii), we need not reach these additional grounds. 7 As the Petitioner cannot fulfi 11 the 
initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), we reserve these issues. 8 
Accordingly, 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 l&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8. 
7 The Petitioner's claims on appeal mirror his same claims he made in response to the Director's RFE and do not identify 
specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal, or even reference the Director's decision 
for these criteria. 
8 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). 
4 
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 the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and he 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). 
Although he participated in acting projects, the record does not contain sufficient evidence establishing 
that the Petitioner is among the upper echelon in his field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability.9 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. 
9 The Director indicated in his decision that the RFE informed the Petitioner that he did not demonstrate that he would 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. Although he referenced the law and discussed the legislative history, 
the Director did not make a final determination in his decision, nor did he explain why the Petitioner did not establish 
eligibility for this requirement. Notwithstanding, as the Petitioner has not established his extraordinary ability under 
section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, we need not consider whether his entrance will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States under section 203(b)(l)(A)(iii) of the Act, and we reserve this issue. 
5