dismissed EB-1A Case: Acting

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrat ive Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
OCT 1 5 2nt4 
INRE: PETITIONER: 
BENEFICIARY: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:/Jwww.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant 
visa petition on April14, 2014. The petitioner, who is also the beneficiary, appealed the decision to 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on May 16, 2014. The appeal will be dismissed. 
According to the petition and accompanying documents the petitioner filed on June 20, 2013, the 
petitioner seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts, as an actress in film and 
television, pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). The director determined that the petitioner has not established the 
sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and 
present "extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section§ 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the 
Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an 
alien, as initial 
evidence, can present evidence of a one-time achievement of a major, internationally 
recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten categories of 
specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The petitioner must submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish the basic 
eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, along with her Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal and Motion, the petitioner files additional 
supporting documents and a two-page appellate statement entitled "Attachment to Form I-290B." In 
part 3 of her Form I-290B, she notes that "I am filing an appeal to the AAO. My brief and/or 
additional evidence will be submitted to the AAO within 30 calendar days of filing the appeal." As 
of this date, more than four months later, we have received no additional evidence or a brief. We 
will adjudicate the appeal based on documents in the record, including those filed along with her 
Form I-290B. The petitioner asserts that she meets the criteria under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3) (ii), (iii), (v), (viii) and (ix). For the reasons discussed below, the petitioner has not 
established her eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. Specifically, the petitioner has not 
submitted qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory criteria set forth in the 
regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As such, the petitioner has not demonstrated that she is 
one of the small percentage who are at the very top in the field of endeavor, and that she has 
sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2), (3). Accordingly, we will 
dismiss the petitioner's appeal. 
I. THE LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
1. Priority workers. - Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants 
who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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 
'(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and 
Naturalization Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high 
standard for individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 
101st Cong., 2d Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be 
established either through initial evidence of a one-time achievement, that is a major, internationally 
recognized award, or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence listed under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of a petition filed under 
this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court upheld 
our decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with our evaluation of the evidence submitted 
to meet a given evidentiary criterion.1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 
(vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns about the 
significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have been 
raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1121-22. 
The court stated that our evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. Instead 
of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the proper 
procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy 
the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Kazarian, 596 F.3d 
at 1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
1 Specifically, the court stated that we had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond 
those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In this case, the petitioner has not satisfied 
the antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting at least three types of evidence under the 
regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), and has not demonstrated that she is one of the small 
percentage who are at the very top in the field of endeavor, or that she has achieved sustained 
national or international acclaim. See 8 C.P.R. §§ 204.5(h) (2), (3). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Translation 
The petitioner has submitted a number of foreign language documents in support of this petition. 
The petitioner, however, has not submitted translations that meet the regulatory requirements under 
8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(3), which provides: "Any document containing foreign language submitted to 
USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator has certified 
as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate 
from the foreign language into English." 
The petitioner initially submitted the foreign language documents and translations when she filed her 
petition on June 20, 2013. In this submission the petitioner did not provide any information relating 
to the identity of the translator or a certification that meets the regulatory requirements under 
8 C.P.R. 103.2(b)(3). In his request for evidence (RFE), the director notified the petitioner that the 
translator of the foreign language documents must certify that: 
• The translations are accurate and complete, and 
• The translator is competent to translate from the foreign language into 
English. 
In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner resubmitted some of the foreign language 
documents initially filed and submitted additional foreign language documents. The petitioner 
included a "Certification by Translator" with the accompanying translations, which indicates that the 
petitioner translated the foreign language documents. The "Certificate by Translator," however, 
does not meet the regulatory requirements under 8 C.P.R. 103.2(b )(3) because it does not certify that 
the translations are complete. In fact, it is evident from a comparison between a 2013 
• compensation document and its English 
translation that the translation is not complete. The foreign language document contains a full page 
of compensation information, whereas the translation contains a few lines of compensation 
information. Translations that are incomplete, or that only include information that the petitioner has 
decided to be relevant, do not meet the regulatory requirements under 8 C.P.R. 103.2(b)(3). 
Accordingly, the foreign language documents and their translations in the record have no probative 
value. In the alternative, even if we were to accept and consider the deficient translations, we would 
dismiss this appeal for the reasons discussed below. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
B. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner, as initial evidence, may present 
evidence of a one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. In this case, 
the petitioner has not asserted or shown through her evidence that she is the recipient of a major, 
internationally recognized award at a level similar to that of the Nobel Prize. As such, as initial 
evidence, the petitioner must present at least three of the ten types of evidence under the regulations 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the basic eligibility requirements. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The director concluded that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner has 
not specifically challenged the director's conclusion. Accordingly, the petitioner has abandoned this 
issue, as she did not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda v. United States Att y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 
1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 9 
(E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the United States District Court found the plaintiffs claims to be 
abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal). 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that she meets this criterion, because she is a member of the 
which she 
claims to be "the most distinguished performers union in the world. Their members are experienced 
professionals who require the utmost standards of working conditions, compensation and benefits." 
The petitioner has not shown she meets this criterion. 
First, the petitioner has not shown that her membership in constitutes her membership 
in a qualifying association. According to a letter from the petitioner joined the 
organization in May 2013. According to its online printouts, "represents more than 
160,000 actors, announcers, broadcasters, journalists, dancers, DJs, news writers, news editors, 
program hosts, puppeteers, recording artists, singers, stunt performers, voiceover artists and other 
media professionals." The printouts further provide that a performer becomes eligible to join 
by showing (1) proof of employment, or (2) employment under an 
affiliated performers ' union. These printouts and other evidence in the record are insufficient to 
show that requires "outstanding achievements of [its] members," as required under the 
criterion. Receiving and completing or affiliated performers' union employment, 
2 
The petitioner does not claim that she meets the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
which is the membership requirement, is insufficient to establish that 
requires "outstanding achievements" from its members. Notably, the materials the 
petitioner submitted state that membership "is a significant rite of passage for every working 
professional in the media and entertainment industry." The materials also "urge" performers to 
consider joining when they "are offered [their] first principal union job." The 
petitioner has not shown that being employed in her occupation constitutes an outstanding 
achievement in that occupation, even if it is a competitive one. In addition, the petitioner has 
presented insufficient evidence showing that the "outstanding achievements" are "judged by 
recognized national or international experts," as required by the plain language of the criterion. 
The record also includes evidence of the petitioner's membership in the 
. . According to an undated and unsigned letter 
from I the petitioner is a member of _ I an 
organization that "specializes in musical talent." The petitioner has provided insufficient evidence 
relating to how these organizations select their members or the requirements for membership in 
is open to "any artist, regardless of their nationality or place of residence" with at 
least one artistic commercially marketed performance that the artist contracts with to 
manage. Accordingly, the petitioner has not shown that her membership in any of these three 
organizations is qualifying under the criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented documentation of her membership in associations in 
the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. The 
petitioner has not met this criterion. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
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 classification 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 concluded that the petitioner met this criterion. The evidence in the record supports this 
conclusion. The petitioner has submitted a February 24, 2010 article "[the Petitioner] · 
published in . and a January 2006 article ' 
_ ' published in . These two articles are about the petitioner and relate to her work as 
an actress. In · addition, the petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence showing that both 
publications constitute major media in Honduras. Accordingly, the petitioner has presented 
published material about her in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to her work in the field for which classification is sought. The petitioner has met this 
criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
On appeal, relying primarily on reference letters, the petitioner asserts that she meets this criterion. 
In her appellate statement, the petitioner points to a May 4, 2014 letter from President 
of as supporting evidence that the petitioner meets this criterion. On 
appeal, the petitioner also submits a list of reference letters in the record, including quotes from the 
reference letters. The petitioner has not shown that she meets this criterion. 
First, it is well established that the petitioner must demonstrate eligibility for the visa petition at the 
time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1971). In other words, the petitioner cannot secure a priority date based on the anticipation 
of future contributions consistent with original contributions of major significance. See Matter of 
Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 160 (Reg'l Comm'r 1977); Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 
169,175-76 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (adopting Matter ofBardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981) 
for the proposition that USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the 
filing of a petition.") As such, reference letters that postdate the filing of the petition on June 20, 
2013, and discuss the petitioner's accomplishments without specifying that those accomplishments 
occurred before the filing of the petition do not establish that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
These letters include the May 4, 2014 letter from Mr. that the petitioner filed on appeal and a 
number of letters that the petitioner filed in response to the director's RFE. 
Second, reference letters that do not explain how what the petitioner did constituted contributions 
that were both "original" and that were of "major significance in the field" of film and television do 
not establish that the petitioner meets this criterion. The petitioner has submitted reference letters 
from individuals who have worked with and/or are familiar with her work. These letters provide 
general praises and approval of the petitioner's acting abilities and professionalism. For example, 
, an actor, whose letter lacks a certified translation that meets the requirements set forth 
in 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(3), states that the petitioner has "great talent as an actress[,] great willingness to 
work in a team" and has the "pleasant ability to get on well with people." an acting 
teacher who taught the petitioner at the _ , states that the 
petitioner brought her experience as "an established television professional in Spain ... as well as 
her creative talent, her conscientious work ethic, and her drive for excellence to the class, raising the 
bar for her fellow students." an actress, director and writer, states that the petitioner 
"is a highly talented actress who is both well liked and well respected by her fellow professionals in 
the l " _ of the 
and the state that the petitioner's "outstanding comedic and dramatic ability 
stood out in 
the audition process" and that she is "an artist of outstanding ability and talent." 
, an actor and director/producer, states that the petitioner "has a plethora of talent, she not 
only brought truth and intensity to [his] film but also a sincere vulnerability to the character, which is 
difficult to achieve. She was simply brilliant, full of vigor and was such a gift to [his] team." 
a television director, states that the petitioner "is an actress with a lot of talent and 
versatility, intuiti[on], who easily integrated with the team during the shoot," and that she is an 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
actress who possesses "vast potential." states 
that the petitioner "has an incredible range, possessing the ability to excel at both dramatic and 
comedic roles. Her ability to slip into the most complex of characters['] psyches is inarguably 
remarkable. rThe petitioner] is a very talented actress." 
and states that he supports the 0-1 visa petition on behalf of the petitioner and 
that the petitioner "has a history of extraordinary achievement in her field of endeavor. "3 The 
reference letters, although numerous, do not include specific information or evidence on the 
petitioner's contributions, let alone original contributions of major significance, in the field of film 
and television. Regardless of the field, the plain language of the phrase "contributions of major 
significance in the field" requires evidence of an impact beyond one's employer and clients or 
customers. See Visinscaia v. Beers, _ F. Supp. 2d _, 2013 WL 6571822, at *6 (D.D.C. Dec. 16, 
2013) (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not 
demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). 
Vague, solicited letters from colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or provide 
specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient.4 Kazarian v. 
USCIS, 580 F3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d at 1115. The opinions of 
experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. USCIS may, in its 
discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron 
Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comrn'r 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making 
the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. !d. The submission of 
letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may, as 
this decision has done above, evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the 
alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also Matter ofV-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting 
that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). USCIS may even give 
less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way 
questionable. !d. at 795; see also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comrn'r 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comrn'r 1972)). The letters 
in the record, including those not specifically mentioned above, primarily contain bare assertions of 
acclaim and vague claims of contributions without specifically identifying contributions and 
providing specific examples of how those contributions rise to a level consistent with major 
significance in the field. See also Visinscaia, 2013 WL 6571822, at *6 (concluding that USCIS' 
3 Although some of the letters make references to a nonimmigrant 0-1 petition on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner 
has not submitted any evidence showing that she has been granted nonimmigrant 0-1 status. Regardless, someone with 
a nonimmigrant 0-1 status is not per se eligible for a classification as an alien of extraordinary ability under section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Act. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. Dep 't 
of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D. D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). Notably, 
the criteria for an alien of extraordinary ability in the motion picture or television industry are different, and the standard 
of extraordinary achievement is lower than the standard for the similarly titled immigrant visa. Compare 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(2)(ii), (v) with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3). 
4 In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that our conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [the alien's] 
contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page9 
decision to give limited weight to uncorroborated assertions from practitioners in the field was not 
arbitrary and capricious). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence of her original scientific, scholarly, artistic, 
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field. The petitioner has not 
met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The director concluded that the .petitioner met this criterion. The evidence in the record does not 
support this decision. We may deny an application or petition that does not comply with the 
technical requirements of the law even if the director does not identify all of the grounds for denial 
in the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 
(E.D. Cal. 2001), aff'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. Dep 't of Justice, 381 F.3d 
143, 145-46 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that we conduct appellate review on 
a de novo basis). 
The evidence in the record, including the petitioner's curriculum vitae and online printouts from 
imdb.com, shows that she has acted in films, television shows and off-Broadway plays. According 
to an undated and unsigned letter from the petitioner has appeared "in 
the highest rated programs in [Honduras], including 
The evidence, however, does not establish that she meets this criterion. 
First, the petitioner has submitted a number of Wikipedia articles relating to television channels and 
television networks. As there are no assurances about the reliability of the content from this open, 
user-edited internet site, we will not assign evidentiary weight to information from Wikipedia.5 
See Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909, 910-11 (8th Cir. 2008). 
5 Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer entitled "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO 
GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY": 
Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia; that is, a voluntary association of 
individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of 
the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that 
nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you 
with complete, accurate or reliable information . 
. . . Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given 
article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not 
correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields .... 
See http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Wikipedia:G eneral disclaimer, accessed on September 16, 2014, a copy of which is 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
Second, the petitioner has not shown that she has performed in either a leading or critical role for 
television series 
According to . director, the petitioner had a role in 
In his letter, Mr. does not indicate whether the petitioner had a leading or critical role. 
According to imdb.com, the petitioner appeared in two episodes of , a television series 
of over 70 episodes. In his letter, Mr. discusses the petitioner appearing in one episode of 
The online printouts from imdb.com also indicate that the petitioner appeared in 
one episode of a television series of at least 80 episodes. The petitioner has not 
shown that her appearance in a small number of episodes of a television show that ran for numerous 
episodes is indicative of her role being · either leading for or critical to the shows. 
_ a creator, director and producer of educational and entertainment television programs, 
verified that the petitioner had been one of the performers in _ 
Although she praises the petitioner's acting abilities and professionalism, she does not 
provide 
details relating to the petitioner's role in the two shows or sufficient information showing 
that the petitioner had either a leading or critical role in the shows. Although the evidence in the 
record shows that these series have a distinguished reputation, it does not show that the petitioner 
has performed either a leading or critical role for the series. 
Third, the petitioner has submitted letters that include conclusory statements that the petitioner 
performed a leading or critical role for some of the television shows. These letters that do not 
provide details about the petitioner's role or show how her role was either leading or critical to the 
television shows are insufficient to establish that the petitioner meets this criterion. For exam le, 
according an actor in ' the petitioner played a "lead role" in r 
an actor in the television series states that the 
petitioner was "a lead guest actress" in the series. the director for the television show 
, states that the petitioner played the role Lia in 
an actor in the television series states that the petitioner played the role 
of Amanda, a "lead character of the episodes in which she intervened" in _ 
, an audiovisual and multimedia producer, states that the petitioner "has worked as a 
leading principal actor and member of the artistic team in various projects of the 
' In their letters, the petitioner's references do not specifY the number 
of episodes in which the petitioner appeared for these shows, details relating to the petitioner's role 
in the shows, or information showing that the petitioner's role was either leading for or critical to the 
shows. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for the purposes 
of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing 
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). Similarly, USCIS need not accept 
primarily conclusory assertions. See 1756, Inc. v. United States Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 17 (D.C. 
Dist. 1990). 
Fourth, the petitioner has not shown that her involvement in films, including and 
. her involvement in off-Broadway plays or her involvement in the musical group 
meets this criterion. Although the petitioner has submitted some evidence showing that she 
has had a lead role in the films and plays, and that she was a lead member of she has not 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
provided sufficient evidence relating to the reputation of the films, plays or musical group, or 
established that they have a distinguished reputation, as required by the plain language of the 
criterion. The film was selected for the - -
~ _ The petitioner has submitted insufficient evidence relating to the 
event or the selection process that shows that the film's selection into the event is indicative of the 
film's distinguished reputation. 
Finally, the petitioner has submitted evidence of her involvement in other television projects, 
including _ The evidence is 
insufficient to show that these projects have or had a distinguished reputation. Specifically, the 
evidence submitted to_ show the reputation of these television programs is from individuals who 
are/were associated with these programs. Such self-promotional evidence has minimal evidentiary 
value. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06-5105 SJO 10 (C.D. Cal. July 6, 2007), aff'd, 317 F. App'x 
680 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that we did not have to rely on self-promotional assertions on the 
cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as major media). The petitioner has not supported 
the self-promotional evidence with more independent evidence, such as, but not limited to, evidence 
that the programs won awards for excellence, or independent journalistic coverage or reviews of the 
programs in nationally circulated publications or major trade publications, establishing that there is 
consensus among critics and industry experts that the programs had "a distinguished reputation." 
According Arturo Sosa, an writer and presenter for __ 
_ whose letter lacks a certified translation required under 8 C.P.R. 
1 03.2(b )(3), "these programs had the unconditional support of the target audience, who were the 
children, youth and adults in [Honduras]. The duration of these productions on air of 
exceeds ten years." According to , a general director of a television 
channel that broadcasted the television show the television show had "an 
assiduous audience" and "great acceptance and high ratings." These letters indicate that the 
television programs have received high television viewership or ratings, and some have had a long 
broadcasting duration. The petitioner has not shown that these claims, made by individuals 
associated with the programs, are sufficient to establish that the programs have a distinguished 
reputation. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence that she has performed in a leading or critical 
role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. The petitioner has not 
met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
On appeal, relying on her employment contracts from 2009 and 2005, and an incomplete translation 
of a 2013 document, the petitioner asserts she meets this criterion. The petitioner has not 
met this criterion. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
First, the 2009 and 2005 employment contracts do not establish that the petitioner meets this 
criterion. According to a 2009 document, entitled "Observations," between November 10, 2009 and 
December 15, 2009, the petitioner received €800 per session for her acting performance in 
. According to a second 2009 document, entitled "Employment Contract for Work or 
Service," between November 4, 2009 and November 17, 2009, the petitioner received €750 per 
session for her acting performance in the television series On appeal, the 
petitioner submits a 2005 document from the • _ 
_ _ , showing that between July 9, 2005 and August 15, 2005, the 
petitioner received €1,000 per accomplished work day for service as a presenter on the program 
The record also includes an incomplete translation of a 2013 document relating to 
compensation rates. The incomplete translation shows that in 2013, lead actors received €649.45 per 
session, guest star actors received €463 .90 per session, and costar actors received €3 71.10 per 
session. This incomplete translation, as discussed above, does not have any evidentiary weight. 
See 8 C.P.R. 103.2(b )(3). Even if we consider this incomplete translation, it does not indicate if the 
2013 compensation rates were the minimum rates for union member actors, the average rates for 
union member actors, or some other figure. As such, the petitioner has not provided sufficient 
information relating to the listed rates that allows us to compare them with rates in the petitioner's 
employment contracts. In her appellate statement, the petitioner states that the listed rates in the 
incomplete translation are "proposed daily rates for actors in her field." The petitioner, however, 
does not indicate the basis or source of her statement. The incomplete translation does not support 
her statement. Even if the rates are "proposed rates," this information does not demonstrate what a 
high salary or significantly high remuneration is in her field. 
Moreover, the rates listed in the incomplete translation relate to compensation rates in 2013, whereas 
the petitioner has submitted documents relating to her compensation rates in 2009 and 2005. On 
appeal, the petitioner asserts that the "rates for lead roles in a television show for the year 2013 are 
higher than what they were in the years in which [the petitioner] recorded these shows." The 
petitioner does not support her assertion with any evidence or documentation. Going ·on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for the purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
Second, conclusory statements that the petitioner meets this criterion are insufficient to establish that 
she meets this criterion. According to who was the 
petitioner's agent/manager, the petitioner "has been consistently working in TV, Film, Theatre and 
Television Commercials as an actress" and she "is one of our highest earners and always has been 
from the commencement of our association." He further states that the petitioner "has been paid 
well above scale compared to other performers at the top of their field in Spain." Mr. does 
not provide specific information relating to how much the petitioner has earned or how much others 
in the petitioner's field have earned. As such, he has provided insufficient evidence to support his 
conclusory assertions or to show that the petitioner meets this criterion. See Matter of Soffici, 22 
I&N Dec. at 165. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence showing that she has commanded a high 
salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. The 
petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
C. Summary 
We have considered all the evidence in the record and conclude that the petitioner has not satisfied 
the antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting at least three types of evidence under the 
regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation ·submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor," and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While we conclude that the evidence 
is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top of the 
field or sustained national or international acclaim, we need not explain that conclusion in a final 
merits determination. 6 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting three types of evidence. Kazarian, 596 P.3d at 
1122. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 381 P.3d 
143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as 
the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii); see also INA§§ 103(a)(l), 204(b); DHS 
Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.P.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.P.R.§ 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of 
Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the 
jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).