dismissed EB-1A Case: Acting

MATTER OF U-B-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 29, 2018 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an actress, 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 of the Texas Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had only shown that she met one of the ten initial evidentiary 
criteria, of which she must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that she meets three criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )( 1 )(A) 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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
Matter of U-B-
requirements. First, a petlt10ner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is a major, 
internationally recognized award). Alternatively, he or she must provide documentation that meets 
at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items 
such as awards, memberships, and published material in certain media). 
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); R(jal v. USCJS, 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 ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is an actress. As she has not established that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The Director found that the Petitioner had only met one of these criteria, judging at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she meets the criteria for published material 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and display at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 1 Upon review, we conclude 
that the evidence in the record does not support a finding that she meets the plain language 
requirements of at least three criteria. 
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 class(fication 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). 
The Director held that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion because the articles in the record did not 
discuss her standing or ranking in the field or the significant impact she has had on the field. On appeal, 
the Petitioner states that this goes beyond the regulatory requirements. We agree. The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires published material about her, relating to her work in the field. 
However, as will be discussed below, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to meet the 
requirements of this criterion. 
1 In the initial filing, the Petitioner also claimed to meet the following criteria: awards under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i); 
leading or critical role under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii); and high salary under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). As the 
Petitioner has not raised these issues on appeal, we will not consider them here. 
2 
.
Matter of U-B-
The Petitioner initially submitted eight examples of published material, along with various other 
articles. We note that the majority of the publications in the record lack the date or the name of the 
author, which are required under the criterion. Additionally, many of the submitted examples are 
newspaper clippings that do not identify the source of the material. While this information is 
handwritten in the record, the Petitioner did not submit corroborating evidence to meet her burden of 
proof. As noted above, we consider the evidence in the record for its relevance, probative value and 
credibility. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376; see also section 291 of the Act 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361. In his decision, the Director also held that the evidence in the record did not demonstrate that 
the publications in which the published material appeared constituted major media. 
On appeal, the Petitioner specifically cites three articles to establish eligibility. She contends that one 
article entitled, satisfies the 
criterion's requirements. However, the record contains only a newspaper clipping of this article, which 
lacks the date of publication as required by the criterion. Additionally, although she is quoted in it, the 
article is not about the Petitioner, as she herself indicates in her appeal brief, stating "[t]he purpose of 
the article was to discuss the subject matter of the film which was sexual abuse, homosexuality and 
prostitution in the Indian community . ... " We also note that the clipping in the record does not 
identify the publication in which it appeared, and the Petitioner did not submit any evidence to 
corroborate her claim that it appeared in the Sunday Times. 
The second article the Petitioner contends establishes eligibility is 
which appeared on www.broadwayworld.com. She provides circulation 
data for the website. However, this article was published after the petition was filed, and therefore, does 
not establish eligibility at the time of filing. See 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )( 1 ). 
Finally, the Petitioner claims that an article entitled 
which appeared in the India West newspaper, satisfies the regulatory criterion. In his 
decision, the Director found the record did not establish that any of the publications, including India 
West, constituted major media. The record contains circulation data for the newspaper, which indicates 
it is focused on the Indian American community and available in California in the area around 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not submit any additional evidence to 
overcome the Director's finding, with which we agree. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established 
that she meets 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 specification for which class{fication is sought. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The record reflects that the Petitioner participated as a judge for the 
and the We conclude therefore that the 
Petitioner meets the requirements of this criterion. 
3 
.
Matter of U-B-
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
The Director held that the Petitioner had not met this criterion because it is limited to the visual arts 
and not the performing arts. On appeal, the record reflects that she performed as a lead character in 
films that were screened at the LA Femme Film Festival, the Durban International Film Festival, and 
the Cannes Film Festival. We also note that the record contains sufficient evidence demonstrating 
that the Petitioner displayed her work as a theatre actress in and other performances in 
South Africa. Therefore, the Petitioner has established that she meets this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because he has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a 
qualifying one-time achievement, or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), or comparable evidence establishing his eligibility. Thus, we do not 
need to fully address the totality of the materials in a final merits determination. 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofU-B-, ID# 1753621 (AAO Nov. 29, 2018) 
4