dismissed EB-1A Case: Acting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22697983 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 19, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an actor, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability . See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C . § 1153(bXl)(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 denied the petition, concluding that while the Petitioner 
met the initial evidence requirement for this classification, the record did not establish that he enjoyed 
sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the very small percentage of actors at the top 
of the field. We subsequently dismissed his appeal, as well as his previous motion to reconsider. The 
matter is now before us on a second motion. 1 
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 dismiss the motion. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1) 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. 
1 The Petitioner checked box l .a in Part2 ofForrnl-290B, indicating that he was filing an appeal. While his accompanying 
brief refers to this filing as bothanappealanda motion , 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 can demonstrate 
international 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). 
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. 20l3);Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
A motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application oflaw or policy to the prior decision. The 
requirements of a motion to reconsider are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We may grant a motion 
that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
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). 
The Director concluded in his most recent decision in this matter that while the Petitioner met three of 
the evidentiary criteria, he did not establish that he had sustained national or international acclaim 
through extensive documentation, and that he was among the small percentage at the top of his field. 
On appeal, we reached the same conclusion, while also refuting the Petitioner's assertion that the 
Director misinterpreted the Ninth Circuit Court's decision in Kazarian as requiring a final merits 
determination. In our previous motion decision, we explained again that case law and official USCIS 
policy supported the Director's and our interpretation of Kazarian, and explained why the record does 
not support the Petitioner's eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
On motion, the Petitioner repeats his previous arguments regarding the requirement of a final merits 
determination, and does not challenge our previous conclusions regarding the merits of his petition. 
As we stated in our two most recent decisions, the Petitioner's reasoning ignores plain language in the 
Kazarian decision and is not supported by relevant caselaw. Further, the publicly available USCIS 
Policy Manual plainly states that if an individual shows that they either meet three of the evidentiaty 
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 
2 
the top of their field. 2 Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that our previous motion 
decision was based upon an incorrect application oflaw or policy. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed. 
2 6 USCIS Policy ManualF.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
3