dismissed EB-1A Case: Drama Directing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF B-B-H-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 6, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM l-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a drama director, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the 
arts. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). 
This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate 
their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose 
achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Beneficiary had satisfied only one of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, 
of which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and contends that he meets at least three 
of the ten criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
.
Matter of B-B-H-
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is, a major , 
internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she 
must provide documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain media , and 
scholarly article s). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence 
requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. US CIS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) 
(discussing a two-part review \Vhere the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria , considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D . Wash. 2011) . This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality ," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance , probative value , and credibility , both individually 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true." .Matter qfChawathe, 25 I&N Dec . 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a drama director of plays in Nepal. Because the Petitioner has not indicated or 
established that he has received a major, internationally recognized award , he must show that he 
satisfies at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) . As 
discussed below·, the record supports a finding that the Petitioner meets three criteria, but it does not 
demonstrate that he has sustained national or international acclaim or is among the small percentage 
at the top of his field. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
In denying the petition , the Director found that the Petitioner met the artistic display criterion under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). The record supports this finding, as the Petitioner's documentary 
evidence indicates that he directed plays at theaters , such as the In addition , we 
find that the Petitioner fulfilled the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) as the record 
shows that he participated as a judge for the at the " 
Further , the Petitioner demonstrated that he earned a high 
salary among other theater directors in Nepal, meeting the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix) . Accordingly, the Petitioner has satisfied three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria , 
and we will evaluate the totality of the documentary evidence in the context of the final merits 
detem1ination below. 
2 
.
Matter of B-B-H-
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, sustained national or international acclaim and 
that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits 
determination, we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to 
determine if his successes are sufficient to demonstrate that he has extraordinary ability in the field 
of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1119-20. In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown his eligibility. 
The Petitioner indicates that "[h ]e is a one and only eminent Director of television 
and film." According to the Petitioner's resume, he has directed over drama plays between 1983 
and 2016, including television shows, feature films, and operas. Further, the resume reflects that he 
received a bachelor's degree in fine arts and a junior diploma in music. 1 As mentioned above, the 
Petitioner has judged competitions, has directed dramas at various theaters and venues, and has 
received a high compensation compared to other Nepalese directors. The record, however, does not 
demonstrate that his achievements are reflective of a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
The Petitioner provided evidence that he received several awards from organizations affiliated with 
the such as two awards from the 
two 
and a 
awards and one service award from the 
award from the 
In addition, the Petitioner \von a 
award from the However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the field 
recognizes these as awards for excellence. The distribution of prizes and awards by government 
entities does not necessarily show that they are nationally or internationally recognized for 
excellence in the field of endeavor or indicate that he "is one of that small percentage who [has] 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Here, the record does not 
document that the competitions included accomplished directors and artists from throughout the 
Petitioner's field reflecting that he received awards against acclaimed competition. U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) has long held that even athletes performing at the major league 
level do not automatically meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of 
"extraordinary ability." Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). 
The Petitioner also presented evidence of his membership with the 
and 
life member of the 
In addition, the Petitioner is a 
However, the Petitioner did not 
1 
The Petitioner's resume does not identifY where he obtained his educational credentials, nor did he provide copies of 
his degree and diploma. 
2 A letter from president of the indicates that the life membership is reserved for those 
3 
.
Maller of B-B-H-
establish that his membership requires outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts. Further, as he has not shown, for example, that he is a member of 
associations that limit membership to directors with renowned endeavors, his membership evidence 
does not contribute to a finding that he has sustained national or international acclaim. See section 
203(b)(1)(A)(i) ofthe Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
In addition, although the record includes several newspaper articles , they are reviews of plays 
without a discussion about the Petitioner. Further, the articles are either undated or cover the period 
from 2001 to 2004, more than a dozen years prior to the filing of the instant petition. The Petitioner 
did present one 2001 article from that constitutes published material about him and his 
work; however, he did not establish that is a professional or major trade publication or 
other major medium. Similarly, the Petitioner offered evidence showing that two authors mentioned 
him in their books, as well as booklets for plays. Again, the Petitioner did not show that the books 
are professional or major trade publications or other major media. Here, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that a single newspaper article published about him over 16 years prior to the filing of 
the petition is consistent with the sustained national or international acclaim necessary for this highly 
restrictive classification. See section 203(b )(I )(A) of the Act. Even if \Ve were to consider the 
totality of the other articles that simply list him as the director without any discussion about him, the 
Petitioner has not shown that his press coverage is indicative of a level of success consistent with 
being among "that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Regarding the Petitioner ' s judging service, an evaluation of the significance of his experience is 
appropriate to determine if such evidence is indicative of the extraordinary ability required for this 
highly restrictive classification. See Kazarian , 596 F. 3d at 1121-22. The record reflects that the 
Petitioner participated as a judge of the 
' in 1998. In addition, he served on the judging panel for the 
in 2000. Further, he provided evidence 
reflecting that he also judged several dance and singing competitions between 1985 and 2005. 
However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the competitions are considered prestigious or 
attract significant attention by the field. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that his two 
instances of judging regional drama competitions, approximately 20 years ago, are indicative of the 
required sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act. Without 
evidence that sets the Petitioner apart from others in his field, such as documentation that he has 
served as a judge of renowned directors rather than aspiring students or amateurs, the record does 
not show that his judging places him in that small percentage at the very top of his field. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
"whose service in the Nepali drama performing arts field reflects clean enthusiasm to his expertise and who is a brilliant 
role model for other theatre Director[s] ." In addition, evidence submitted regarding reflects that 
life membership include s at least I 0 years of theatre contributions , dramas or films, and five years as a general 
member. 
4 
.
;'"falter of B-B-H-
With respect to his contributions to the field, the Petitioner states that he "submitted letters from pre­
eminent members of the theatre and film industry vouching for his significant contributions. " 
Specifically, the Petitioner asserts that he introduced ' · and references a letter from 
and his book, The record, however , does not reflect that 
is an original contribution of the Petitioner. In fact, makes no 
mention of ' in his recommendation letter, and according to his book , ' 
' was "already established in our ancient theatre though it is given this name by Westerners. " 
The Petitioner also cites to the book, by and his accompanying 
recommendation letter, as evidence of his ability to "bring dramaturgy and cinematographic modes 
of performance together. " did not indicate the originality of this contribution, nor did he 
explain the impact on the field. The Petitioner did not establish that this claimed skill is an original 
contribution that is considered of major significance in the field. While the record contains 
recommendation letters that generally confirm his work in theater and praise him for his work , they 
do not show that the Petitioner has significantly influenced the field placing him in "that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. " 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Moreover, the Petitioner presented evidence showing that his work was displayed at various venues, 
such as theaters and street plays. As it is expected that a director, such as the Petitioner , would 
exhibit his artistic work in front of an audience, we will evaluate the extent to which the display of 
his work is reflective of acclaim consistent with this classification. The record contains a letter from 
who stated that the Petitioner's "plays were super in the box office on Nepali theatres." 
However, the evidence is not sufficient to show , for example, that his plays brought praise from 
critics , drew notable crowds, raised attendance , or were responsible for the success or standing of the 
event. The submitted evidence does not distinguish the Petitioner's plays from others in his field or 
demonstrate that it reflects a "career of acclaimed work in the field." H.R. Rep. No. 101-723 at 59. 
The record also shows that the Petitioner founded the and works as a drama 
director for the In addition, the Petitioner indicates that he is on the 
board of directors for the Although the Petitioner 
provided recommendation letters indicating his responsibilities, such as "spreading the Nepale se 
drama direction in several villages" for the Petitioner did not establish that his 
work at these organizations has been recognized by the field as being significantly important or 
viewed as unusually influential. The submitted documentation, for instance , does not reflect that the 
Petitioner has somehO\:v impacted the field through his work at these establishments demonstrating 
attention at a level commensurate with those at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
Although the Petitioner has shown that he earns a high salary among theater directors in Nepal, the 
record as a whole, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish his eligibility for the 
benefit sought. The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification , intended for individuals 
already at the top of their respective fields. As noted above, US CIS has long held that even athletes 
performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability " standard . 
}\-fatter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954. While the Petitioner need not establish that there is no one 
Matter of B-B-H-
more accomplished to qualify for the classification sought, we find the record insufficient to 
demonstrate that he has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small 
percentage at the top of his field. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofB-B-H-, ID# 935324 (AAO Mar. 6, 2018)