dismissed EB-1A Case: Acting

(b)(6)
DATE: 
AUG 2 7 2014 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. , MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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://www.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. 
;:i"'Jr_?-
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, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. We will dismiss the 
appeal. 
The petitioner seeks the beneficiary's classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" as a motion 
picture actress, pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(l)(A) . The director determined the petitioner had 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 beneficiary ' s "sustained national or international acclaim" and 
present "extensive documentation" of the beneficiary's achievements. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of 
the Act and 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that 
an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through 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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). 
The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
The petitioner's priority date established by the petition filing date is May 3, 2013. On May 14, 2013, 
the director served the petitioner with a request for evidence (RFE). After receiving the petitioner's 
response to the RFE, the director issued his decision on August 9, 2013. On appeal, the petitioner 
submits a brief and new documentary evidence. For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the 
director 's ultimate determination that the petitioner has not established the beneficiary's eligibility for 
the classification sought. 
I. 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): 
(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)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
U.S. 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. !d.; 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The 
regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the beneficiary's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award) or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of 
evidence listed at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (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 the decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the evaluation of evidence submitted 
to meet a given evidentiary criterion. 1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.P.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. " !d. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the 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 we did)," and if the petitioner did not 
submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as we concluded)." !d. at 1122 (citing to 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)). 
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 matter, we will review the evidence under the 
plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has not satisfied the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. 
1 
Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Prior 0-1 Visa 
While U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) has approved at least one 0-1 
nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude 
users from denying an immigrant visa petition based on a different, if similarly phrased, 
standard. First, the petitioner works in the motion picture and television industry. The regulation at 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2( o) separately addresses aliens who have a demonstrated record of extraordinary 
achievement in the motion picture or television industry. 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) defines 
extraordinary achievement as "a very high level of accomplishment in the motion picture or television 
industry evidenced by a degree of skill and recognition significantly above that ordinarily encountered 
to the extent that the person is recognized as outstanding, notable, or leading in the motion picture or 
television industry." The regulatory criteria for meeting this definition are set forth at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v) and differ from those relating to the immigration classification now sought discussed 
below. For example, the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(5) lists testimonials from experts as a 
category of evidence while the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) does not include testimonials as their 
own category of evidence. As such, that the petitioner obtained nonimmigrant status as an alien with a 
demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or television industry is not 
determinative. 
Moreover, it must be noted that many I-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves 
prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 
2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). Because USCIS spends less time reviewing I-129 
nonimmigrant petitions than I-140 immigrant petitions, some 
nonimmigrant petitions are simply 
approved in error. Q Data Consulting , Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see also Texas A&M 
Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding that prior 
approvals do not preclude users from denying an extension of the original visa based on a 
reassessment of petitioner's qualifications). 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of 
Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). It would be absurd to 
suggest that USCIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex 
Engg . Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between 
a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the 
nonimmigrant petitions on behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the 
contradictory decision of a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 
282785 (E.D. La.), affd , 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
PageS 
B. Evidence Deriving from Wikipedia and Translations 
The petitioner relies in part on evidence from Wikipedia. With regard to information from Wikipedia, 
there are no assurances about the reliability of the content from this open, user-edited internet site.Z See 
Lamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (81h Cir. 2008). Therefore, this documentation has 
no evidentiary weight or probative value. Further, the translations in the record do not comply with the 
terms of 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3), which provides: 
Translations. 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 record includes certifications from dated December 26, 2008 that certi 
specific numbered translations. The actual translations, however, bear no numbers. On appeal, 
certifies that she translated "the documents attached" which she does not identify or list. 
Neither of the certifications identifies either the petitioner or the beneficiary. Thus, the record contains 
no evidence that these certifications pertain to the translations in this record of proceeding. 
C. One-time Achievement 
The petitioner claimed that the beneficiary accomplished the following one-time achievements in the 
proceedings before the director under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3): 
• 
• 
The director found that the petitioner had not submitted evidence that the beneficiary actually received 
these awards. On appeal, the petitioner submitted sufficient evidence that the beneficiary actually 
received the l . However, 
the record lacks primary evidence of the As a portion of Exhibit 
2 
Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer, "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 
opm10n does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. See 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General disclaimer, accessed on August 12, 2014, a copy of which is 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page6 
9 within the initial filing, the petitioner provided a photograph of the beneficiary, an award, and two 
other individuals. The informational page accompanying this photograph reflects that this is from the 
for the beneficiary's ' for her starring 
role in ' by Italian director '' The name of the award is not displayed 
within this photograph. Additionally, the year in which the beneficiary received this award listed on 
this informational page does not correlate with other claims within the file. For example, the RFE 
response indicates that the petitioner received this award in 2008 and is accompanied by two 
photographs of the beneficiary and the award. Again, the name of the award is not displayed in either 
photograph. While the petitioner provided photographs of these unknown awards, the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(2) provides: 
Submitting secondary evidence and affidavits. (i) General. The non-existence or other 
unavailability of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. If a required 
document, such as a birth or marriage certificate, does not exist or cannot be obtained, 
an applicant or petitioner must demonstrate this and submit secondary evidence, such as 
church or school records, pertinent to the facts at issue. If secondary evidence also does 
not exist or cannot be obtained, the applicant or petitioner must demonstrate the 
unavailability of both the required document and relevant secondary evidence, and 
submit two or more affidavits, sworn to or affirmed by persons who are not parties to the 
petition who have direct personal knowledge of the event and circumstances. Secondary 
evidence must overcome the unavailability of primary evidence, and affidavits must 
overcome the unavailability of both primary and secondary evidence. 
Where the regulations require specific, objective evidence of achievements, such as awards, the primary 
evidence of such awards would be documented copies or photographs of the awards themselves if the 
certificates or photographs reflect the recipient and the name of the award. An example of secondary 
evidence might be media reports of the competition results. Affidavits attesting to awards, therefore, 
would need to "overcome the unavailability of both primary and secondary evidence." The petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the required evidence is unavailable or cannot be obtained, and therefore the 
beneficiary is presumed ineligible pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2). 
Even if the petitioner had provided primary evidence of the the 
director determined that the petitioner did not establish that either of the beneficiary's awards 
constitutes a one-time achievement that is, a major, internationally recognized award. On appeal, the 
petitioner indicates on the Form I-290B that the director ignored documentary evidence related to the 
beneficiary's claimed major internationally recognized awards. Within the appellate brief, the petitioner 
only addresses the and no longer asserts a claim of the 
The director determined that this award did not amount to a one-time achievement pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). With regard to a one-time achievement pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), a Federal 
Court recently stated: 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
The ... debate over what constitutes a "major" international award [is one] that neither 
party can hope to win. Common experience draws no line of demarcation between those 
awards that are "major" and those that are not. The applicable law in this case draws no 
clearer line, other than to establish that some awards are "major, international recognized 
award[s]" and others are "lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards". 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) & (3)(i). Nothing in either the INA or the regulations 
implementing it explains how USCIS or a reviewing court is to differentiate between 
"major" and lesser awards. In legislative history, Congress named the Nobel Prize as its 
sole example of a major, internationally recognized award that would by itself 
.demonstrate "extraordinary ability." Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119 (citing 1990 
U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 6739). No one suggests that an alien must win a Nobel Prize to 
qualify, and no one suggests that (the petitioner's] awards are on par with a Nobel Prize. 
What awards less prestigious and recognized than the Nobel Prize qualify as major, 
international awards is a question that the law does not answer. There is little question, 
moreover, that Congress felt it unnecessary and perhaps inadvisable to define "major" in 
this context. It entrusted that decision to the administrative process. 
Rijal v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) affd, 683 
F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, --- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2013 WL 6571822, at *5 
(D.D.C. Dec. 16, 2013). The Rijal court also determined that USCIS did not act arbitrarily and 
capriciously when it: 
[C]onsidered the relevant factors and articulated a rational connection between the facts 
it found and the choice it made. USCIS explicitly considered the awards and all of the 
evidence [the petitioner] submitted to support his claim that they were major, 
international awards. USCIS articulated a rational connection between those facts and 
its conclusion that his awards were not "major." [Evidentiary citation omitted.] Another 
adjudicator might have come to a different conclusion, but that is irrelevant. Unless the 
court can conclude that no rational adjudicator would have come to that conclusion, the 
USCIS did not act arbitrarily and capriciously. 
!d. at 1345-46 affd, 683 F.3d 1030; see also Visinscaia, 2013 WL 6571822, at *5. 
Congress' example of a one-time achievement is a Nobel Prize. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990). The regulation is consistent with this legislative history, stating that a one-time achievement 
must be a major, internationally recognized award. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Significantly, even lesser 
internationally recognized awards could serve to meet only one of the ten regulatory criteria, of which 
an alien must meet at least three. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). The selection of Nobel Laureates, the 
example provided by Congress, is reported in the top media internationally regardless of the nationality 
of the awardees, is a familiar name to the public at large and includes a large cash prize. While an 
internationally recognized award could conceivably constitute a one-time achievement without meeting 
all of those elements, it is clear from the example provided by Congress that the award must be 
internationally recognized in the beneficiary's field as one of the top awards in that field. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
The petitioner asserts within the RFE response that the ' is 
an internationally recognized, distinguished, and highly respected film festival, where only the most 
celebrated talents in the film industry are invited." Within this same response, the petitioner submits 
articles that indicate receiving awards at the is often a 
precursor to receiving an Oscar at the Academy Awards, one of the highest honors in filmmaking. 
However, the fact that an honor occurs prior to a top industry award is not an indicator that the 
precursor award is also one of the top awards in the field. 
On appeal the petitioner identifies a letter from Secretary General of 
which sponsors the Mr. describes the 
festival as a "renowned revent],which has taken place between the Christmas and New Year holidays 
since ' Mr. also notes that many of the films showcased at this event proceed "to win 
many prestigious honors including Golden Globes and Academy Awards." 
Regarding Mr. claim that the is a renowned 
event, the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the prestige must be related to the award 
itself rather than to the event at which the award is issued. Furthermore, the petitioner did not provide 
evidence from outside the award issuing entity that demonstrates the prominence of this 
Award, such as, but not limited to, media coverage of the award selections. 
We affirm the director's ultimate determination that the petitioner did not provide evidence to establish 
that the beneficiary's is a major, internationally recognized award, as it did 
not provide evidence that this award is internationally recognized in the beneficiary's field as one of the 
top awards in that field. 
D. Evidentiary Criteria4 
The petitioner asserts on the Form I-290B, that the director did not consider the "opinion letters 
authored by academy award directors, producers, and critics in the field of motion picture[s]," which 
referenced the petitioner's national and international recognition. However, the petitioner did not 
specify under which regulatory criterion that such opinion letters should be considered. As stated 
above, unlike the similarly-worded nonimmigrant classification for which USCIS has approved the 
beneficiary, the immigrant classification the petitioner now seeks for the beneficiary does not include 
testimonials. Compare 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(v) with 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3). Rather, such letters may 
be relied upon to corroborate evidence that exists in the file or to elaborate on the petitioner's claims; 
however, the petitioner must indicate how it wishes the agency to apply the letters. In addition, such 
letters could be relevant to a final merits determination. In this matter, however, USCIS need not 
conduct a final merits determination as the petitioner has not satisfied the initial evidentiary 
requirements. 
4 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence not 
discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements the petitioner must satisfy. According to the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the evidence must establish that the beneficiary 
is the recipient of the prizes or the awards (in the plural). The clear regulatory language requires that the 
prizes or the awards are nationally or internationally recognized. The plain language of the regulation 
also requires the petitioner to submit evidence that each prize or award is one for excellence in the field 
of endeavor rather than simply for participating in or contributing to an event or to a group. The 
petitioner must satisfy all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner claims the beneficiary's receipt of two actual awards, and several instances in which she 
was either invited to film festivals, or she was invited to present an award at film festivals. The awards 
the petitioner claims the beneficiary received are the previously discussed at 
the and the at the 
The petitioner did not provide primary evidence of the beneficiary's 
as noted above. The director determined that the petitioner did not 
meet the requirements of this criterion. 
While the beneficiary's invitations to attend or to present at the various film festivals are notable, the 
petitioner did not submit evidence demonstrating that these invitations are evidence that meets the plain 
language requirements of this criterion as prizes or awards. 
Regarding both of the beneficiary's claimed awards, the petitioner has not provided evidence that 
demonstrates these awards are nationally or internationally recognized awards in the beneficiary's field. 
The petitioner provided information relating to the film festivals that issued the awards; however, the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires that the award itself be nationally or internationally 
recognized. While the issuing entity's prominence is of some value, it is not a determining factor 
regarding the awards' national or international recognition. 
Even if the petitioner were to establish that the film festivals where the beneficiary received her awards 
are nationally or internationally recognized, this level of acknowledgement does not automatically 
impute such recognition to her awards. An award does not garner national or international recognition 
from the competition in which it is awarded, nor is it derived from the individual or group that issued 
the award. Rather, national and international recognition results through the awareness of the accolade 
in the eyes of the field nationally or internationally. This can occur through specific means; for 
example, through media coverage. The petitioner did not submit evidence of major media coverage of 
the events or similar evidence from independent sources. Unsupported conclusory letters from those in 
the petitioner's field are not sufficient evidence that a particular award is nationally or internationally 
recognized. Again, the regulation places the focus on whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the 
award is nationally or internationally recognized, rather than on the film festival at which the 
beneficiary received the award. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
Consequently, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of 
this criterion. 
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. 
This criterion contains three evidentiary requirements the petitioner must satisfy. First, the published 
material must be about the beneficiary and the contents must relate to the beneficiary's work in the field 
under which she seeks classification as an immigrant. The published material must also appear in 
professional or major trade publications or. other major media (in the plural). Professional or major 
trade publications are intended for experts in the field or in the industry. To qualify as major media, the 
publication should have significant national or international distribution and be published in a 
predominant national language. The final requirement is that the petitioner provide each published 
item's title, date, and author and if the published item is in a foreign language, the petitioner must 
provide a translation that complies with the requirements found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The 
petitioner must 
submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements 
of this criterion. 
The petitioner provided the following forms of evidence: pictures in magazines accompanied by 
captions, transcripts of television interviews, and magazine and newspaper articles. The director 
determined that the petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion. The director did identify 
an article that appeared to meet the regulatory requirements, except for the shortcoming of a lack of 
independent circulation data, or the publication's intended audience that may demonstrate the 
publication is a professional or major trade publication, or other major media. On appeal, the petitioner 
did not provide any such information for this publication, although it did attempt to provide similar 
information for "a few of the publications" that are part of the record of proceeding at the petitioner's 
Exhibit 83. 
A review of the evidence relating to this criterion reveals that each form of evidence falls short of 
meeting all of the regulatory requirements. The evidence possesses one or more of the following 
shortcomings: 
• Supporting evidence to establish evidence constitutes major media derives from Wikipedia, 
which this decision has discussed as being an unreliable source; 
• The material is not about the beneficiary and relating to her work in the field of motion pictures; 
• The evidence lacked circulation or distribution data, or the publication's intended audience to 
demonstrate the publication is one of the regulatory required publication types; 
• The petitioner submitted several evidentiary items in the form of photographs with a caption 
that includes the beneficiary. The petitioner did not demonstrate that the beneficiary is 
mentioned in the articles that accompany the photographs. A caption accompanying a 
(b)(6)
Page 11 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
photograph that merely identifies the beneficiary in the photograph is not published material 
about the beneficiary and relating to her work; 
• Most of the foreign language documents were not accompanied by properly certified 
translations as required in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b ), which states the translator must 
certify that the translation is "complete and 
accurate"; and 
• Foreign language documents with certified translations did not bear the date, author, or 
publication name in which the material appears as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Regarding the evidence titled, the published material is about the beneficiary and relates 
to her work in the field but lacks a date, author, the publication in which the material appears, and is not 
accompanied by circulation or distribution data or information relating to the intended audience to 
demonstrate that the publication constitutes one of the required forms of media. Furthermore, the 
evidence from dated November 2005 is about the beneficiary and relates to her work in the 
field, but the petitioner did not submit circulation 
or distribution data or provide information relating to 
the intended audience to demonstrate the publication constitutes one of the required forms of media. 
The petitioner also provided transcripts of television interviews on appeal. First, as this regulatory 
criterion requires "published material" in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media and "the title, date, and author of the material," television interviews and television 
appearances by themselves are not published material in one of the required forms of media and do 
not meet the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Second, the supporting 
evidence relating to the television stations Rai 1 and Rai 2 to establish that these stations are major 
media is from Wikipedia, which this decision has noted is not a reliable source. 
Regarding the transcript of a portion of the awards ceremony at the the 
petitioner did not submit evidence that this transcript was published in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. Within the appellate brief the petitioner only asserts that this 
evidentiary exhibit appeared on television and characterizes it as a "television interview." Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comrn'r 1998) (citing 
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). Even if the petitioner 
had demonstrated that this ceremony appeared on television, television appearances by themselves are 
not published material in one of the required forms of media and do not meet the plain language of 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Of additional importance, the petitioner did not indicate 
the date on which this awards ceremony took place; only that it was in 2013. 5 A petitioner must 
establish the elements for the approval of the petition at the time offiling. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12). 
A petition may not be approved if the beneficiary was not qualified at the priority date, but expects to 
5 An Internet search that revealed that the occurred between of 
2013, which postdates the petition's priority date, May 3, 2013. See 
accessed on August 26, 2014, a copy of which is incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
become eligible at a subsequent time. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1971). 
As such, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner failed to 
establish the beneficiary's eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings 
for this criterion or offer additional arguments. Therefore, the petitioner has abandoned its claims under 
this criterion. Sepulveda v. U.S. 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 court found the 
plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or record, 
cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
This criterion requires a petitioner to establish eligibility through volume of sales or box office receipts 
as a measure of the petitioner's commercial success in the performing arts. The director discussed the 
evidence submitted pursuant 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x) and found that the petitioner failed to establish 
the beneficiary's eligibility as it did not provide evidence reflecting "the beneficiary's commercial 
success relative to others involved in similar pursuits." On appeal, the petitioner makes only passing 
reference to this issue within Part 3 of the Form I-290B, asserting that box office receipts for films 
starring the beneficiary were ignored. The petitioner did not offer any additional specifics within the 
appeal, nor did it provide evidence of box office receipts for other commercially successful movies in 
the U.S. or Italy to which we could compare the box office evidence relating to the beneficiary's films. 
Because the petitioner did not address the director's concerns on appeal, it has not established that the 
beneficiary has experienced commercial successes in the performing arts. Accordingly, the petitioner 
has not submitted qualifying evidence under this criterion. 
E. Summary 
The petitioner has not satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the beneficiary 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. 
---------------------------
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
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[ir] 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 not satisfied the antecedent 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. /d. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
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 of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 P.3d 143, 145 (3d 
Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains 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 section 103(a)(1) of 
the Act; section 204(b) of the Act; 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).