dismissed EB-1A Case: Acting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF N-B-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 28, 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an actor, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the arts. 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, Texas Service Center, denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied 
only one ofthe initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In his appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief stating that he 
meets at least three criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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 ofthe 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 
(b)(6)
Matter ofN-B-
(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 ~eld 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). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself~ establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. US CIS, 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), af('d, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter o.fChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that 
the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services examines "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"). Accordingly, where a petitioner submits 
qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we will determine whether the totality of 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is an actor who has performed in several movies in NepaL 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). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Director found that the Petitioner met the published material criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). A review of the record of proceedings contains an article from the 
that discusses the Petitioner relating to his acting career. As the article meets the plain language 
of this regulatory criterion, we concur with the Director's decision. 
Although the Director did not find that the Petitioner met any other criteria, the record indicates that 
the Petitioner satisfies two additional criteria. Specifically, the Petitioner received the 2011 
Film Award for As the record reflects this 
I 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of N-B-
award is nationally recognized for excellence in Nepal, the Petitioner meets the plain language for 
the awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
In addition, the Petitioner's movies have premiered at artistic exhibitions, such as at 
the in Australia. Therefore, the Petitioner satisfies the artistic 
display criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). Accordingly, the Petitioner has provided the required 
initial evidence that meets at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the reqms1te initial evidence, we will conduct a final merits 
determination. 
Specifically, we evaluate whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, that he has sustained national or international acclaim and that his 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation, making him one 
of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. In a final merits 
determination, we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to 
determine if his successes are sufficient to demonstrate that he has extraordinary ability in the field 
of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1119-20. In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown his eligibility. 
The record indicates that the Petitioner first received attention as a model, winning 
by the in 2006 and then later receiving 
the title in the Philippines that same year. The Petitioner debuted as an 
actor in the movie, in 2009, earning him the 2011 Since then, the 
Petitioner has performed in over a half dozen movies and has received a lesser known 
in 2014.from the As discussed further below, a 
significant portion of the Petitioner's documentation relates to his former profession as a model. 
Moreover, the Petitioner has garnered limited attention from several movies rather than a "career of 
acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. I 01-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990). 
Although the Petitioner offered several newspaper articles, most of them are exclusively about his 
former modeling career at least 10 years ago rather than about his current profession as an actor. In 
addition, the Petitioner submitted a few articles that are about his acting in and the 
that do not contain the author as required by the published material criterion. The 
Petitioner presented one 2010 article discussing his acting career, from the that 
meets all the regulatory requirements. The Petitioner did not demonstrate that a single article 
published approximately 5 years prior to the filing of the petition is consistent with the sustained 
national or international acclaim necessary for this highly restrictive classification. Even if we were 
to consider the totality of the other articles that relate to him as an actor, the Petitioner has not shown 
that his press coverage is indicative of a level of success consistent with being among "that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of N-B-
The petitioner also presented evidence of his membership with the 
However, the Petitioner did not establish that membership requires 
outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts. As he has not 
shown, for example, that he is a member of acclaimed associations that limit membership to actors 
and actresses with renowned accomplishments, his membership evidence does not demonstrate that 
his "achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) ofthe 
Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
In addition, the record reflects that the Petitioner participated in judging fashion and talent contests, 
such as the 2006 2007 
and 2014 An evaluation of the 
significance of the Petitioner's judging experience is sanctioned under Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-
11, to determine if such evidence is indicative of the extraordinary ability required for this 
classification. Without evidence that sets the Petitioner apart from others in his field, such as 
documentation that he has served as a judge of professional and renowned actors rather than aspiring 
students or amateurs, the record relating to this criterion does not demonstrate that he "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). 
Further, although he submitted photographs with captions indicating his presence at movie premieres 
and promotional tours, the Petitioner did not identify or provide information regarding the venues. 
The Petitioner did present evidence reflecting that and premiered at 
in Nepal, and at the m Australia, 
respectively. While he did not include information about the the Petitioner 
offered evidence that is a cinema "to watch a movie in a decent environment." The 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that his movies premiered at distinguished 
or highly acclaimed 
venues, and they garnered attention reflecting that his "achievements have been recognized in the 
field of expertise." See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) ofthe Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). For example, 
the record is not indicative of his premieres bringing critical acclaim, drawing record crowds, or 
receiving a high amount of press coverage. 
Moreover, the Petitioner provided a letter from stating that four of his 
mov1es , and are "blockbusters" earning 
about 30 million rupees each or about $280,000, two of his movies ( and are "hits" 
earning about 21 million rupees each or about $196,000, and one movie is "average" earning 
about 15 million rupees or about $140,000. 1 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3) requires "[a] 
petition for an alien of extraordinary ability must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has 
sustained national or international acclaim and this his or her achievements have been recognized in 
the field of expertise." The Petitioner has not shown that his box otiice earnings are remarkable or 
that his movies drew a significant level of attendance compared to other movies in the industry in a 
manner consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. 
1 See http://www.xe.com. 
4 
Matter of N-B-
In summary, the Petitioner's evidence confirms that he works in the film industry as an actor. This 
experience, however, is not sufficient to establish that he has garnered sustained national or 
international acclaim, or that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of his field of 
endeavor. We find that the record as a whole does not reflect extensive documentation showing that 
the Petitioner's achievements have been recognized in the field. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the 
Act. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he is eligible for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofN-B-, ID# 234493 (AAO Feb. 28, 2017) 
5