dismissed EB-1A Case: Acting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 25233092 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 21, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
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 of the Nebraska Service Center initially denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner 
did not meet any of the claimed criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(i)-(x) . Following an appeal, we 
remanded the case to the Director for entry of a new decision . The Director determined that, while 
the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirement for this classification, the record did not establish 
that he achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the very small percentage of 
actors at the top of the field . The Petitioner appealed the new decision and we dismissed that appeal. 
We also dismissed two subsequent motions to reconsider. The matter is now before us on a third 
motion to reconsider. 1 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec . 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review , we will dismiss the 
motion . 
I. LAW 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability classification if they have extraordinary ability 
in the sciences, arts , education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and their achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation; they seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States . Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. 
1 The Petitioner checked box 1.a in Part 2 of Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, indicating that he was filing an 
appeal. However , because his brief refers to his filing as a motion to reconsider our previous motion decision, we will 
consider this as a motion to reconsider . 
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 may demonstrate 
international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award). Absent such an achievement, a petitioner must provide 
sufficient qualifying documentation demonstrating that they meet at least three of the ten criteria listed 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
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). 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded in his most recent decision in this matter that while the Petitioner met three of 
the ten evidentiary criteria, he did not establish that he had sustained national or international acclaim 
through extensive documentation, nor did he establish that he was among the small percentage at the 
top of his field. On appeal, we reached the same conclusion; we also refuted the Petitioner's assertion 
that the Director misinterpreted the Ninth Circuit's decision in Kazarian as requiring a final merits 
determination. In our initial motion decision, we explained again that case law and official U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy supported the Director's and our interpretation 
of Kazarian, and we explained why the record does not establish that the Petitioner qualifies as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. In our subsequent motion decision, we explained that the 
Petitioner's reasoning ignores plain language in the Kazarian decision and is not supported by relevant 
caselaw; we further explained that the publicly available USCIS Policy Manual plainly states that if 
an individual shows that they either meet three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) or 
have a one-time achievement, they must then establish that they possess the requisite sustained 
national or international acclaim and are one of the small percentage at the top of their field. 2 
On motion, the Petitioner does not challenge our previous conclusions regarding the merits of his 
petition. The Petitioner submits copies of court cases from 1994, 1995, and 2008, as well as non­
precedent appellate decisions 3 from 2004 and 2007, for individual petitions that were found to qualify 
2 See generally 6 USCTS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
3 We note that these decisions were not published as precedents and therefore do not bind USCTS officers in future 
adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). Non-precedent decisions apply existing law and policy to the specific facts of the 
individual case, and may be distinguishable based on the evidence in the record of proceedings, the issues considered, and 
as noted above, applicable law and policy. 
2 
for the extraordinary ability classification. Those petitions were found eligible for the classification 
because it was determined that certain evidence presented to support the petitions was either 
mischaracterized or ignored. However, those cases were decided under previous adjudicative policy 
guidance that is not applicable to the present case. Further, those cases were decided prior to the 2010 
Kazarian decision. In the present case, we fully reviewed the evidence of record and rendered our 
previous motion decision based on that evidence in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and 
USCIS policy. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that our previous motion decision was based upon an incorrect 
application of law or policy. Therefore, we will dismiss the motion to reconsider. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3