dismissed EB-1A Case: Acting

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: EAC 04 223 50910 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: HAR 0 3 M06 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
u. 
5 ~obert P. Wiemann, D~rector 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 04 223 509 10 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 11 53(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the 
arts as an actor. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or 
international acclaim requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. On appeal, the petitioner 
maintains that he achieved sustained national and international acclaim and submits seven digital video disc 
(DVD) recordings of movies in which he has acted. The petitioner's claims and the evidence submitted on 
appeal do not overcome the deficiencies of the petition and the appeal will be dismissed for the following 
reasons. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) 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 in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained national or international 
acclaim" that the statute requires. 
 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
 An alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained acclaim by meeting at least 
three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. However, the weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3), or under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4), must depend on the extent to which such evidence 
demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the 
alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition 
of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(2). 
We address the evidence submitted and the petitioner's contentions in the following discussion of the regulatory 
criteria relevant to the petitioner's case. The petitioner does not claim eligibility under any criteria not discussed 
below. 
EAC 04 223 509 10 
Page 3 
(9 Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
In his April 18, 2005 letter, the petitioner states that a few of the movies in which he acted won awards. He 
provides no further details regarding the titles, dates or significance of these purported awards. Simply going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). The record contains no corroborative evidence of any 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards presented to the petitioner as an individual actor. 
Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classiJication is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of a letter dated November 26, 1996 from the Screen Actors Guild and 
addressed to him as a member. The letter references an enclosed check for "late payment damages in 
conjunction with [the petitioner's] work on FULL COURT PRESS" (capitalization in original). The record 
contains no evidence that the petitioner remained a member of the Screen Actors Guild in the over seven years 
from the date of this letter to the filing of his petition. The record is also devoid of any evidence that the Screen 
Actors Guild requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or 
international acting experts. Rather, the submitted letter states that the Screen Actors Guild is a branch of the 
"Associated Actors and Artistes of AmericaIAFL-CIO." Insomuch as membership in a labor union is a 
necessary or regular part of employment in a given field, an alien's union membership alone will not satisfy this 
category. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(iii) 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 classijication is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner submitted several articles purportedly about him that were written in foreign languages. The 
articles were submitted without English translations as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(3). 
Because the petitioner failed to submit certified translations of the documents, we cannot determine whether the 
evidence supports the petitioner's claim. See 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(3). Accordingly, the evidence is not probative 
and will not be accorded any weight in this proceeding. On appeal, the petitioner indicated that he would send 
translations of the articles to the AAO within 30 days. The petitioner dated his appeal June 14, 2005. To date, 
over eight months later, the AAO has received nothing further from the petitioner. 
The petitioner also submitted a copy of one article in En lish, entitled "Kee in it All in the Family." This 
article was published in the June 22, 1998 edition of 
 The article discusses the 
assimilation of the petitioner's immigrant family into the United States and states that the petitioner was a 
successful young movie actor in Poland who now drives an ice cream truck for a living and "struggles between 
enjoying his newfound anonymity and hoping to one day reclaim the star status he knew." The article was 
published six years before this petition was filed and indicates that even prior to its publication, the petitioner 
past acclaim as an actor in Europe. The record is also devoid of any evidence 
that the 
 is a professional, major trade publication, a nationally circulated - as opposed to 
EAC 04 223 509 10 
Page 4 
regional - newspaper, or otherwise constitutes a form of major media. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet 
this criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major signiJicance in the field. 
The petitioner does not specify any original artistic contributio 
 ificance that he has made to his 
field. The record contains a letter dated April 15, 2005 fro 
 identified as "Director/Producer 
aium 
A&E7s Biography 'Fyodor Dostoevsky,"' who states that the pet~t~oner 1s an extraordinary ActorIArtist. He 
has displayed much professional talent in his roles that hi [sic] is assigned to. He could be the future Dustin 
Hoffman." M-does not state that th 
PlirP 
ner acted in "Fyodor Dostoevsky" or otherwise discuss how 
he is aware of the petitioner's abilities. Mr 
 indicates that the petitioner is a talented actor, but does not 
state that the petitioner has made any original artistic contributions of major significance to his field in a manner 
consistent with the requisite sustained acclaim. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits DVD copies of seven movies in which he acted. Because the petitioner failed 
to submit certified translations of these movies, we cannot determine whether the evidence supports the 
petitioner's claim. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). Accordingly, the evidence is not probative and will not be 
accorded any weight in this proceeding. The petitioner claims that these movies were aired all over Europe and 
that some of the productions won unspecified awards. The petitioner submits no documentation to corroborate 
his claim. Again, simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient to meet the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Soflci, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Most importantly, the petitioner submits no 
evidence that his work in these films was critically acclaimed, influenced other actors, or otherwise had a 
significant impact on his field in a manner consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. 
Moreover, the petitioner states that the movies submitted on appeal date from 198 1 to 199 1, or 23 to 13 years 
before his petition was filed. The record contains no primary evidence of the petitioner's work as an actor after 
1991 and consequently does not indicate that the petitioner sustained his purported past acclaim as an actor in 
Europe afier his arrival in the United States in 1991. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner claims that he has acted in films that were broadcast all over Europe and that some of these films 
won unspecified awards. The record contains no evidence to corroborate these claims or document that the 
petitioner's work was shown at film festivals or other comparable events in a manner consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim. Again, simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is 
not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. Soflci, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner claims that he starred in seven movies from 1981 to 1991 that were aired all over Europe and 
some of which won unspecified awards. As discussed above, the copies of the petitioner's movies were 
submitted without the required translations and the record is devoid of any corroborative evidence of the 
purportedly wide broadcast of the movies or their alleged awards. Even if the record sufficiently documented 
the petitioner's starring role in the movies, the petitioner has submitted no evidence that he performed a leading 
EAC 04 223 509 10 
Page 5 
or critical role for any distinguished acting or film company as a whole in a manner consistent with the requisite 
sustained acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(l)(A), 
only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or 
international acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of his or her field. The record in this 
case does not establish that the petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim as an actor 
placing him at the very top of his field. He is thus ineligible for classification as an alien with extraordinary 
ability pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), and his petition may not be 
approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. tj 1361. 
 Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
 Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.