dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

irlentHvlng data deleted to 
pl.·event clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: MAY 1 It ZD1Z Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary ; 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. CiLizenship 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)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER; 
INSTRUCTIONS; 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised 
that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen with 
the field office or service center that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal 
or Motion, with a fee of $630. The specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5. Do not file any motion directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) 
requires any motion to be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
_\LJr 3- _ 
Perry Ll: 7J-- r­
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
-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. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the arts, pursuant to section 
203(b)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(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 alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.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.F.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. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and additional evidence. For the reasons discussed below, we 
uphold the director's ultimate conclusion that the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the 
exclusive 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 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
-Page 3 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USerS) 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 lOIS! 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. 1d.; 
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 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.F.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 AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation 
of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion. I With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while users 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." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's 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)" Id. at 1122 (citing to 
8 c.F.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. 
While counsel asserts that "[t]he reviewing ofIicer misinterprets Kazarian" and that "the decision 
denying [the] application is contrary to regulation, unjust, and erroneous," counsel's assertions are not 
persuasive. First, counsel relies on Bllietini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1234 (E.D. Mich. 1994) for the 
proposition that submission of evidence under three criteria alone is sufficient to establish eligibility. 
Notably, the court in Bllietini did not reject the concept of evaluating the quality of the evidence at 
any time. The Bllietini court held, as the Kazarian court did, that it is an abuse of discretion to deviate 
from the criteria of its own regulation. Bllietini, 860 F. Supp. at 1234. The court continued: 
I 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.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Once it is established that the alien's evidence is sufficient to meet three of the criteria 
listed in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the alien must be deemed to have extraordinary ability 
unless the INS sets forth specific and substantiated reasons for its finding that the alien, 
despite having satisfied the criteria, does not meet the extraordinary ability standard. 
Id. (Emphasis added.) As is clear from the italicized language, the Bllietini court considered the 
possibility that an alien can submit evidence satisfying three criteria and still not meet the extraordinary 
ability standard provided legacy INS explains its reasoning. 
Counsel also references Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 445-46 (N.D. Ill. 1995). In that case, the court 
included a final section entitled "Totality of the Evidence" in which it evaluated whether the evidence 
submitted established national or international acclaim. The court expressly stated: "While the 
satisfaction of the three-category production requirement does not mandate a finding that the petitioner 
has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in his field, it is certainly a start." MllIli, 
891 F. Supp. at 445-46. The court went on to fault legacy INS for failing to articulate why the evidence 
did not establish such acclaim. The AAO concurs that if an alien meets at least three of the initial 
criteria, then USCIS must set forth specific and substantiated reasons for finding that the alien does not 
meet the extraordinary ability standard. This must be done within the context of a final merits 
determination. 
In Bllietini, the court also acknowledged that "the examiner must evaluate the quality, including the 
credibility, of the evidence presented to determine if it, in fact, satisfies the criteria." Bllietini, 860 F. 
Supp. at 1234. Regardless, in contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United 
States circuit court, the AAO is not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district 
court. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 1993). The reasoning underlying a district judge's 
decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before the AAO; however, the analysis 
does not have to be followed as a matter of law. Id. at 719. Ultimately, the subsequent reasoning of a 
circuit court decision outweighs the reasoning of an earlier district court decision. Significantly, the 
Kazarian court cited Bllietini for the nature of the alien's achievements in that case. Thus, the 
Kazarian court was aware of the decision in Bllietini and still set forth a two-step procedure. 
Second, the Kazarian court did, in fact, provide two examples of how evidence might be considered 
under a final merits determination. For example, the court accepted that the AAO's analysis of the 
strictly internal nature of the alien's judging experience "might be relevant to a final merits 
determination." Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. In addition, the court accepted that whether an author's 
articles have garnered citations in the field "might be relevant to the final merits determination of 
whether a petitioner is at the very top of his or her field of endeavor." The court felt compelled to 
acknowledge the AAO's concerns in that case and expressly stated that they were legitimate 
concerns, but should have been addressed separately after counting the evidence. 
Page 5 
Significantly, the final merits discussion appears in the majority opinion and is a necessary corollary 
to the majority's discussion of how USCIS should consider evidence under the regulatory criteria. In 
other words. the court's conclusion that USCIS cannot raise certain concerns when counting the 
evidence is predicated on the understanding that USCIS can do so at a later stage. To apply only half 
of the court's procedure would effectively negate USCIS' ability to consider the quality of the 
evidence at any stage. Such an outcome is untenable, contradicts the understanding in Bllietini that 
the quality of the evidence is relevant and would undermine the statutory standard of national or 
international acclaim. Notably, as stated above, the Kazarian court cited Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 
2d at 918 for the proposition that the classification is extremely restrictive. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1120. 
For the reasons discussed above, the AAO considers the final merits determination step discussed in 
Kazarian not only persuasive, but necessary to understanding the court's decision as a whole. 
While the director concluded that the petitioner met at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence, the AAO finds that the petitioner met only two of the criteria. However, because the director 
used a final merits determination as the basis for denial, the AAO will review the director's findings as 
well. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Prior 0-1 
While USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petitIOn filed on behalf of the 
petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition 
based on a different, if similarly phrased, classification. It must be noted that many 1-140 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. 2(03); 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). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0) includes aliens who have a demonstrated record of extraordinary 
achievement in the motion picture or television industry. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0 )(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.F.R. 
§ 214.2(0)(3)(v) and differ from those relating to the immigration classification now sought discussed 
below. 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. 
-Page 6 
B. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field flJr 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 director discussed the petitioner's single membership in a labor union and found that the petitioner 
failed to establish that the evidence was qualifying. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the 
director's findings for this criterion or offer additional arguments. Upon review of the evidence, the 
AAO concurs with the director's conclusion in this regard. 
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. 
The director found that the petitioner satisfied the plain language requirements of the regulation at 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and the AAO concurs with that finding. 
Evidence of the alien 's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 
The director found that the petitioner satisfied the plain language requirements of the regulation at 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and the AAO concurs with that finding. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The record contains a number of letters of recommendation filed with the initial petition, in response to 
the director's request for evidence and with the appeal. On appeal, counsel asserts that the letters of 
recommendation "are objective testimonial evidence," referring to them as "expert letters" that 
"provide a critical insight to undertand the nature and significance of the contributions." Although 
counsel has never asserted a claim under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the AAO will evaluate the letters 
under this criterion. 
~~"-' counsel asserts that "the Disney letter itself; issued by_ 
was not even considered." In response to the director's request 
for evidence, the petitioner submitted a letter which served to confirm the petitioner's role on the 
Disney television show and falls under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). On appeal, the 
petitioner submitted a new letter to clarify that the petitioner's role included acting skills, not just 
hosting skills. These letters will be addressed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). The AAO will not 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence 
not discussed in this decision. 
Page 7 
presume that evidence relating to or even meeting the leading or critical role criterion is presumptive 
evidence that the petitioner also meets this criterion. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the 
regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. Therefore, this letter will 
not be further considered under this criterion. 
an artist and Film Commissioner for The Italian 
level in Italy at his very young age." 
writes "[h]e had already sustained national recognition 
who directed the petitioner in a recent movie, states "I believe It [sic] is the 
emotion and passion [the petitioner] puts into his roles that make him stand out above all other 
actors." While the petitioner's colleagues and acquaintances certainly think highly of him, the letters 
fail to provide concrete examples of the petitioner's contributions and do not indicate that his 
contributions are of major significance. Furthermore, there is no evidence to indicate that the letters 
are written by experts, rather than colleagues and acquaintances. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded 
simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BfA 2000) 
(citing cases). The Board also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction 
of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." [d. If testimonial 
evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit 
corroborative evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BfA 1998). 
Vague, solicited letters from local colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or 
provide specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian 
v. USClS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) atJ'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010).3 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 International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. 
Id. 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 of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 
500, n.2 (BfA 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 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'1. 
Comm'r. 1972». 
The letters considered above primarily contain bare assertions of acclaim and vague claims of 
3 In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that the AAO's 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. 
Page 8 
contributions without specifically identifying contributions and providing specific examples of how 
those contributions rise to a level consistent with major significance in the field. Merely repeating 
the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin 
Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 
1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, USCIS need 
not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 
745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dis!. 1990). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien '.1' work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The director stated in his denial that "this criterion requires that your work must have been displayed at 
artistic exhibitions or showcases, and your evidence does not make that showing." On appeal, the 
petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this criterion or oiler additional arguments. Upon 
review of the evidence, the AAO concurs with the director's conclusion in this regard. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The director found that the petitioner "performed in a leading host role on a regular series on the Disney 
Channe\." The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires "[eJvidence that 
the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation." Based on a review of the record of proceeding, the AAO must withdraw the 
findings of the director for this criterion. 
While it is clear that Disney has a distinguished record does not support the petitioner's 
claim that he performed in a leading role for them. 
confirms that the petitioner "re:nn~sents 
. as an actor version of However, the 
-~,,;,;.-- .. - failed to submit any evidence to show that the petitioner's role is critical to the_ 
as a whole. The record does not demonstrate the importance to 
as one television show. Without supporting documentation such as 
viewership numbers, ratings information, ad revenues, or other comparable evidence, the AAO cannot 
find that the petitioner has satisfied this criterion. 
Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires the petitioner's 
leading or critical role in more than one organization or establishment with a distinguished reputation. 
Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are worded in the plural. Specifically, the 
regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require service on a single judging panel or a 
single high salary. When a regulatory criterion wishes to include the singular within the plural, it 
expressly does so as when it states at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience must be 
Page 9 
in the fonn of "Ietter(s)." Thus, the AAO can infer that the plural in the remaining regulatory criteria 
has meaning. In a different context, federal courts have upheld users' ability to interpret significance 
from whether the singular or plural is used in a regulation. See Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-
2158 (RCL) at 12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnames.com Inc. v. Chertoff; 20(}6 WL 3491005 at 
*10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an interpretation that the regulatory requirement tor "a" 
bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single degree 
rather than a combination of academic credentials). 
Even if the AAO agreed with the director that the petitioner performed in a leading role for Disney, 
which the AAO does not, the petitioner only submitted qualifying evidence to demonstrate the 
distinguished reputation of the Disney Channel. Although the record contains other evidence reflecting 
his leading roles in other television, theatrical and cinematic productions, the petitioner did not submit 
any qualifying evidence to indicate whether any of these roles were for an organization or establishment 
with a distinguished reputation. While the petitioner did submit internet printouts from the Internet 
Movie Database and Wikipedia in response to the director's request for evidence, this is not evidence of 
a distinguished reputation. With regard to information from Wikipedia, there are no assurances about 
the reliability of the content from this open, user-edited internet site. 4 See Lamilem Badasa v. 
Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 9(}9 (8th Cir. 2008). 
The burden is on the petitioner to establish that he meets every element of this criterion. Without 
documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for 
more than one organization or establishment with a distinguished reputation, the AAO cannot 
conclude that the petitioner meets this criterion. As such, the AAO withdraws the decision of the 
director for this criterion. 
4 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. Plcase 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://cn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipcdia:Gencral disclaimer, accessed on May 4, 2012, a copy of which is 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
Page 10 
Evidence of commercial Sllccesses in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or record, 
cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In his denial, the director stated: "You submitted evidence that various Disney ventures have 
experienced commercial success, but you have not submitted evidence that any of that success was 
directly attributable to you." On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this 
criterion or offer additional arguments. Upon review of the evidence, the AAO concurs with the 
director's conclusion in this regard. 
C. Summary 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types 
of evidence. However, in accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step is a final merits 
determination that considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has 
demonstrated: (l) a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the[irJ field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); 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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See Kazarian, 596 P.3d at 1119-20. 
D. Pinal Merits Determination 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) provides that "[aJ petition for an alien of extraordinary ability 
must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that 
his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." The petitioner's evidence must 
be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the 
criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3), therefore, depends on the extent to which such evidence 
demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of 
the alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory 
definition of "extraordinary ability" as "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." 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The evidence indicates, as stated by the director in her request for evidence, that the petitioner "is a 
promising actor who has not yet risen to the top level of that field," but is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field. The AAO concurs 
with the director's finding in the notice of denial that "the petitioner is pursuing an acting career" but 
the record lacks evidence that distinguishes the petitioner from other actors working in similar 
productions. 
US CIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet 
the statutory standards for immigrant classification as an alien of "extraordinary ability." Matter of 
Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994); 56 Ped. Reg. at 60899. In Matter of Racine, 1995 
WL 153319 at *1, *4 (N.D. Ill. Peb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
, . 
[T]he plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a 
comparison of Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of play; but 
rather, Racine's ability as a professional hockey player within the NHL. This 
interpretation is consistent with at least one other court in this district, Crimson v. INS, 
No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. III. September 9, 1993), and the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
The court's reasoning indicates that users' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) is 
reasonable. Likewise, it does not follow that the petitioner, who has not offered any evidence that 
distinguishes him from other working actors, should necessarily qualify for approval of an 
extraordinary ability employment-based visa petition. To find otherwise would contravene the 
regulatory requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) that this visa category be reserved for "that small 
percentage of individuals that have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor." 
The conclusion the AAO reaches by considering the evidence to meet each category of evidence at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. 
Ultimately, the evidence in the aggregate does not distinguish the petitioner as one of that small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.ER, § 204.5(h)(2). The 
petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals at the top of their 
respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top at some unspecified future time. 
In this case, the petitioner has not established that his achievements at the time of filing the petition 
were commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim, or that he was among that small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
The truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone, but by its quality. Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010) citing Matter ofE-M- 20 I&N Dec. 77, 80 (Comm'r 1989), 
Ill. 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 has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden, Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.