dismissed EB-1A Case: Acting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 1986570 8 
Motion on Admini strative App eals Offic e Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 17, 2022 
Form 1-140 , Immi grant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordin ary Ability) 
The Petition er, an actor , seek s classification as an individu al of extraordinary ability . This first 
preferenc e cla ssification makes immigrant visas available to tho se who can demon strate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or internation al acclaim and whos e achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensi ve document ation. 
The Director of the Nebra ska Service Center denied the petition , and we sub sequently dismi ssed the 
app eal. The matte r is now before us on a motion to recon sider. 
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 review, we will dismis s the motion. 
I. LAW 
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 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 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) . The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)( 4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standa rds at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x) do not 
readil y apply to the indi vidual's occupation . 
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) . 
( 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 ). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l )(i) limits U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' authority 
to reconsider to instances where an applicant has shown "proper cause" for that action. Thus, to merit 
reconsideration, a petitioner must not only meet the formal filing requirements at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(iii) (such as submission of a properly completed and signed Form I-290B, Notice of 
Appeal or Motion, with the correct fee), but also show proper cause for granting the 
motion . Specifically, a motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of 
proceedings at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) . In these proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish by a preponderanceofthe evidence eligibility for the requested benefit 
MatterofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A brief summary of this proceeding reflects that the Director determined that the Petitioner satisfied 
three of the ten evidentiary criteria: awards under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), published material under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), and judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) . As such, we evaluated the 
totality of the evidence in the context of a final merits determination. 1 Based on this review, we 
concluded that the Petitioner did not establish his sustained national or international acclaim, 2 that he 
is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his achievements have 
been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. See section 203 (b )( 1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 
8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian , 596 F.3d at 1119-20 . 3 
As a preliminary matter, the review of any motion is narrowly limited to the basis for the prior adverse 
decision. Accordingly, we examine any new arguments to the extentthat they pertain to our dismissing 
his appeal. Thus, the issue before us is whether we erred in evaluating the totality of the Petitioner's 
evidence in the final merits determination. 
On motion, the Petitioner contends that since we did not disturb the Director's decision relating to 
meeting three criteria, we contradicted ourselves by negating the evidence in the final merits 
determination. In addition, the Petitioner asserts that "since Regulation requires 3 criteria together to 
prove national or international acclaim, then one criterion has only to qualify 1/3 of national or 
international acclaim." The Petitioner made similar arguments on appeal , which we thoroughly 
addressed. Again, Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20 set forth the multi-part analysis where a two-part 
review is conducted: the evidence is first counted to determine whether the individual fulfills at least 
three of the evidentiary criteria, and if so, then the totality of evidence is considered in the context of 
1 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), https: //www.uscis.gov /policymanual/HTMUPolicyManual.html (providing that 
objectively meeting the regulatory criteria in part one alone does not establish that an individual meets the requirements 
for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability undersection203(b)(l )(A) of the Act). 
2 Id. (stating that such acclaim must be maintained and providing Black 's Law Dictionary 's definition of"sustain " as to 
support or maintain , especially over a long period of time, and to persist in making an effort over a long period of time). 
3 Id. (instructing that USCIS officers should then evaluate the evidence together when considering the petition in its 
entirety to determine if the petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence the required high level of expertise 
of the immigrant classification). 
2 
final merits determination to decide whether an individual is among that small percentage who has 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. While the Petitioner continues to maintain that simply 
satisfying three criteria is sufficient in showing eligibility for an extraordinary ability classification, 
for the reasons stated, both case law and USCIS policy do not support his assertions. 
In the final merits determination relating to his awards, we discussed the Petitioner's five awards and 
explained why they did not demonstrate his sustained national acclaim in his field and indicate that he 
is currently among the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field. On motion, the 
Petitioner states that "[s]ince [the] Service Center admitted that [he] has met this criterion and [the] 
AAO has not in its opinion disqualified this criterion, [he] regards it as also admitted by AAO and 
does not need to further address this criterion." Here, the Petitioner does not contest or explain any 
error in our determination for this issue. 
Regarding published material, we concluded that he submitted one qualifying article reflecting 
published material about him and acknowledged that he provided ten other articles. Moreover, we 
determined that while his limited media coverage indicated that he had received some media 
recognition for certain roles and projects during his career, the record did not demonstrate that he 
enjoyed sustained national or international acclaim. On motion, the Petitioner claims that he "was 
rep01ied many times and [he] only selected 10 from the many reports" and "[h]ad [the] Service Center 
required a definite number of more than 10 reports by media in its RFE [he] could have providedmany 
more reports about [him]." In the case here, we evaluated the record based on the Petitioner's claims 
and his submitted documentation. If further media reporting existed and he wanted us to evaluate the 
evidence, then he shouldhave submitted the additional documentation. Moreover, itis the Petitioner's 
burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) does not specify a ce1iain number of published 
articles to meet the first step in the Kazarian analysis but may be a consideration in the second part. 
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." Chawathe, 
25 I&NDec. at 376. 
As it pertains to his judging experience, we determined that his single instance of judging in 2015 did 
not show him as being among that small percentage at the very top of the field. On motion, the 
Petitioner contends that the "[r]egulation requires alien to judge the work of other peers," and "[i]t 
does not require such judgment made by an internationally top person." The first step of the Kazarian 
analysis involves determining whether the individual satisfies the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204 .5 (h)(3)(iv ), which requires evidence that the individual has participated as a judge of the work 
of others. Once the first step is achieved, then the totality of the evidence, including any judging 
experience, is evaluated in the second step of the analysis. Although we agree that an individual is 
not required to judge an internationally top person, the Petitioner did not show how his limited judging 
experience represented an individual as being among that small percentage at the very top of the field 
of endeavor. The Petitioner, for instance, did not demonstrate how his sole instance ofjudging of an 
internal organizational award at the China Film Performing Arts Institute in 2015 distinguished him 
within his field, reflecting sustained national or international acclaim or that his achievements have 
been recognized through extensive documentation. 
3 
Beyond the three criteria determined by the Director that the Petitioner satisfied, we considered 
additional documentation in the record to determine whether the totality of the evidence demonstrated 
eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. Specifically, we evaluated evidence relating to the 
Petitioner's membership with the China Theatre Association (CTA) and concluded that he did not 
establish that his membership was indicative of his sustained national or international acclaim, 
garnered him such acclaim, or that membership was reserved for those actors in the small percentage 
at the very top of the field. On motion, the Petitioner makes his prior assertion that "membership in 
CTA is one of the listed criteria towards providing his sustained national acclaim. Or his membership 
has met 1/3 of the requirement of national or international acclaim." Again, the Petitioner did not 
meet the membership criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) for the first part of the Kazarian analysis. 
Even ifhe did, simply satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x) does 
not establish sustained national or international acclaim, as previously discussed. Regardless, we 
addressed his membership claims in the final merits determination and explained that the Petitioner 
did not show how is evidence qualified him for extraordinary ability classification. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that we erroneously applied law or 
policy. Accordingly, we will dismiss his motion to reconsider. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown that we incorrectly applied law or policy in our previous decision based 
on the record before us. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
4