dismissed EB-1A Case: Motion Picture And Television Production

(b)(6)
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 
DATE: OCT 1' 4 2014 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
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:Uwww.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. 
Thank yo(/17 
~2)-;::--
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 December 22, 2013. The petitioner, who is also the beneficiary, appealed the 
decision to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on January 17, 2014. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
According to the petition and the accompanying documents filed on October 17, 2013, the petitioner 
seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts, as an actress and performer in the 
field of motion picture and television production, pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(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)(l)(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, the petitioner files no additional supporting documents, although she states in her 
appellate brief that "[w]e are submitting additional documentation that will further verify and 
conclusively demonstrate" her accomplishment and recognition in the film and television industry. 
The petitioner asserts that she meets the criteria under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) (ii), 
(iii), (iv), (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): 
(A)Aliens with extraordinary ability. -An alien is described in this subparagraph if-
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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.P.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 
the AAO's 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 
Page4 
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. Prior 0-1 Visa Petitions 
While 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. Under the regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(i), 
an 0-1 nonimmigrant in the motion picture and television industry must show extraordinary 
achievement. The regulation defines "extraordinary achievement" as "a very high level of 
accomplishment in the motion picture . . . 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 .... " 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). 
The regulation relating to the immigrant classification, 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2), however, defines 
extraordinary ability in any field 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." While the ten immigrant 
criteria set forth in the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) appear in nonimmigrant regulations, 
8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii), they refer only to aliens who seek extraordinary ability in the fields of 
science, education, business or athletics. Separate criteria for nonimmigrant aliens of extraordinary 
ability in the motion picture and television industry are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 
214.2(o)(3)(v). As such, a petitioner's approval for an 0-1 nonimmigrant visa in the motion picture 
and television industry under the lesser standard of "extraordinary achievement" is not evidence of 
her eligibility for an immigrant visa under the higher standard of"extraordinary ability." 
B. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Under the regulation at 8 C.P.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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the basic eligibility requirements. 
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 5 
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 plaintiff's 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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The director concluded that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner 
asserts that she meets this criterion, because she "is a member of the prestigious acting industry 
organization in Canada, _ 
which selected her due to her achievements and stature." The petitioner has not shown she meets 
this criterion. 
First, the petitioner's membership in does not meet this criterion. According to 
Membership Coordinator, Toronto, the petitioner has been an member 
since November 2006. Ms. states that' membership requires that applicants acquire 
credits by competing with other professional performers to obtain a minimum number of 
professional engagements in the union's jurisdiction. It is not easy to earn these credits and, as a 
result, membership is rightly regarded as both a mark of professional distinction and a sign 
of serious commitment to the craft and business of performing." The petitioner has not shown that 
the requirement of "obtain[ing] a minimum number of professional engagements" constitutes 
"outstanding achievements." Working in an occupation, even a competitive occupation, is not an 
outstanding achievement in that occupation. In addition, the petitioner has presented insufficient 
evidence showing that recognized national or international experts have judged the "outstanding 
achievements," as required by the plain language of the criterion. 
Second, the petitioner has not shown that the 
' . 
of which she is a member, constitutes a qualifying 
association. According to a letter from a case manager at the 
the petitioner is a member of The petitioner has not submitted any evidence relating 
to how one becomes a member or if the requires "outstanding 
achievements of [its] members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields," as required 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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
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 number of published material, including "Canadian 
Actress [the Petitioner] Stars as " published in the 
entertainment section of Star fthe Petitioner] Talks about Playing 
' published in _ Actress [the Petitioner Comes out 
Swinging in _ ," published in and ' 
published in the ~ _ 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). 
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. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The director concluded that the petitioner met this criterion. The evidence in the record does not 
support this conclusion. 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). 
According to a November 20, 2013 letter from Director of Finance and 
Administration, Toronto, the petitioner "was asked to serve as a juror for the 
in Toronto .... [The petitioner] was specifically chosen for this critically 
important task by virtue of her reputation in the cinematic and television community." Ms. 
letter does not specifically indicate that the petitioner served as a juror. Rather, the letter states that 
she was invited to serve as a juror. Similar! y, other evidence in the record does not specifically show 
that the petitioner actually served as a juror. Although the evidence shows that the petitioner was 
invited to serve as a juror, such an invitation, without evidence of the petitioner actually serving as a 
juror or a judge, is insufficient to meet the plain language of the criterion. 
The record also includes evidence that the petitioner participated in a panel discussion during the 
2010 The petitioner, however, has not submitted any evidence showing that her 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
participation involved judging the work of others in the same or an allied field, as required by the 
plain language of the criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence of her 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 petitioner has not met this criterion. See 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The director concluded that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. On ap eal, the petitioner 
asserts that she meets this criterion because of her role in the television series " 
and her performance in other television shows and movies. The petitioner has not shown she meets 
this criterion. 
The petitioner's performance in the movie constitutes performing a 
leading or critical role for an organization or establishment that has a distinguished reputation. 
Specifically, the petitioner played the role of in the movie. According to 
the petitioner's role was "one of the lead roles in the film." 
According to _ the petitioner's role "was very important to [the] 
film due to the size of the role and it's [sic] crucial fight sequences." Mr. states that the 
petitioner's "final performance was key and essential to the artistic and box office success of the 
film." In addition, the evidence in the record, including published material, evidence of the film's 
commercial success and receipt of awards, establishes that the film has a distinguished reputation. 
Notwithstanding the petitioner's role in _ which constitutes her 
performing a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment that has a distinguished 
reputation, the petitioner has not shown she has met this criterion. The plain language of the 
criterion requires evidence of the petitioner having performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments, in the plural, that have a distinguished reputation, consistent with 
the statutory requirement for extensive documentation. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. 
While the petitioner's role in constitutes evidence of the petitioner 
having performed a leading or critical role for one qualifying organization or establishment, the 
record lacks evidence that the petitioner has performed a leading or critical role for another 
qualifying organization or establishment. 
Specifically, the petitioner's involvement in does not constitute her performing 
a leading or critical role for a qualifying organization or establishment. The evidence establishes 
that the petitioner had a recurring role in the television series produced by 
a _ in the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 production years. 
Executive Producer and Creator of' " states that the petitioner played a 
character that was "integral to the show and its storyline." Co-Executive Producer of 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
. states that the petitioner "play[ ed] the lead role of 
best friend, [the petitioner wasl a key central character in the series; she [was] the voice 
of reason, an ambitious go-getter, and loyal confidante ." Mr. further states that 
the "series simply wouldn't be able to go on without her." an award-winning and 
international best-selling author, states that the petitioner played a "crucial, critical and leading role 
in L • a] primetime television series" and that her role was "a fan favorite that 
ha[ d] helped this series move successfully into a Second Season." 
Although the evidence shows that the petitioner's role in constitutes a critical 
role for the television series, the evidence does not establish that the series constitutes an 
organization or establishment that has "a distinguished reputation," as required under the criterion. 
In her appellate brief, the petitioner asserts that the television series is "critically acclaimed." She 
does not, however, point to any specific evidence in the record to support of this assertion. 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. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 
1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
a producer for ' ' states that the series was "a national television show" 
that started to air on the network in January 2013. Ms. states that it was a "primetime" 
television series. Neither these two letters nor any other 
evidence in the record, including published 
material about the television series, establish that has a distinguished 
reputation. The record lacks evidence that ' had won any major or recognized 
awards in the industry or that there is consensus among critics and industry experts that it had "a 
distinguished reputation." The imdb.com printout indicates that the television series was nominated 
for two _ __ Awards in 2013. The petitioner has not demonstrated that the show won either 
of the two awards. The petitioner has not shown that the nominations establish that the show was 
critically acclaimed as the petitioner asserts or otherwise had a distinguished reputation . Although 
the record includes published material about the show, the published material does not include 
critical reviews; rather, it introduces the cast, announces the renewal of the series, or describes the 
show without establishing that it had a distinguished reputation in the field. 
Moreover, the petitioner ' s involvement in other television and movie projects is insufficient to show 
she meets this criterion. According to an October 16, 2013 imbd.com printout, the petitioner has 
acted in television shows and movies since 2005. She was casted in a Disney project called 
'' a television series named ' _ ' She also played a lead character in the short 
film " In her appellate brief, the petitioner asserts that she has been involved in 
"large scale film and television productions internationally and nationally, which have been 
produced by a [sic] major television networks and film companies, all with highly distinguished 
reputation. " The petitioner, however , does not specify what evidence in the record establishes the 
alleged "distinguished reputation." 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. Moreover, at issue is not the television networks' or film companies' 
reputation. At issue is the television and movie projects' reputation , as the petitioner is claiming to 
have performed a leading or critical role in the television and movie projects, not a leading or critical 
il 
! 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
role for the television networks or film companies. Furthermore, the petitioner has submitted a 
number of Wikipedia articles relating to television stations, networks and production companies. 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.3 See Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 
F.3d 909, 910-11 (8th Cir. 2008). Ultimately, the evidence in the record does not establish that the 
television or movie projects, in which the petitioner was involved, constitute "organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation," as required under the criterion. The evidence is 
insufficient to show that the petitioner's projects have a distinguished reputation among the many 
Television shows and movies produced and released each year in the United States and Canada. 
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.P.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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The director concluded that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner 
asserts that she meets this criterion because she has earned over $250,000 annually. The evidence in 
record does not establish that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
According to a February 17, 2012 Memorandum Agreement for Test with Pilot and Series Options, 
for her performance in ' ' the petitioner received $20,000 per episode in the 2012-
2013 production year (first year), and $20,800 per episode in the 2013-2014 production year (second 
year). According to a December 9, 2013 printout from imdb.com, the petitioner appeared in 18 
episodes of " a chartered public accountant and certified fraud 
examiner, who serves as the petitioner's accountant, states that the petitioner earned over $250,000 
for her 
work in the first season of' According to a November 14, 2013 letter 
from , a managing partner at , the petitioner "has consistently 
3 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:General disclaimer, accessed on August 15, 2014, a copy of which is 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
brought in over $250,000 per year over the last few years." President of 
states that the petitioner "is a top earner on the 
show, and that she has a very favorable earning potential as compared to many of the 
individuals on extensive client list." Although the petitioner has shown that 
remuneration for her 
performance has been at least $250,000 annually, she has not shown that the 
amount is considered either a "high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in 
relation to others in the field," as required under the 
criterion. 
First, the petitioner has submitted an incomplete document that does not establish she meets this 
criterion. The incomplete document - two pages of a ten-page document - entitled 
_ ' indicates that "Major Role" performers for full-hour 
programs received $7,674 from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013, and $7,823 from July 1, 2013 
through June 30, 2014. According to page two of the document, performers in "Multiple Program 
(Weekly)" for half-hour and full-hour shows received $2,240 from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 
2013, and $2,285 from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014. This incomplete document does not 
indicate whether the compensations listed are the performers' average compensations. It also does 
not indicate if the compensations listed are for an· hour of work, a day of work, an entire 
show/episode or some other work unit. As such, this incomplete document does not establish what 
constitutes a high salary in the petitioner's occupation for comparison purposes. 
Second, a showing that the etitioner' s compensation is higher than the minimum payment 
requirement per episode under rules is not sufficient to establish the petitioner meets 
this criterion. See Matter of Price, iO I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering a 
professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also Grimson v. INS, 934 F. 
Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforcers); 
Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (comparing salary of NHL defensive player 
to salary of other NHL defensemen). 
According to Mr. November 11, 2013 letter, as "a member of our union _ 
_ ,the minimum per episode ("scale payment") is $3,083/episode. [The petitioner], currently 
an actress in an episodic show, earns a considerably higher salary per episode." The petitioner has 
not shown that earning more than the minimum required payment meets this criterion. Moreover, 
the letter states that the petitioner's salary "is comparable to other performers of her caliber in the 
same medium." Neither this letter nor any other evidence in the record provides information about 
the high earnings in the occupation regardless of caliber. The criterion requires a comparison 
between the petitioner's earning and others in the field, not limiting the comparison to performers of 
the petitioner's caliber. 
Finally, the record includes online printouts providing average or mean earning statistics for actors. 
They do not demonstrate that the petitioner meets this criterion. Merely documenting an earning 
above the average earning in the field is insufficient evidence under the plain language requirements 
of the criterion, which requires evidence of a high salary in relation to others in the field. In 
addition, the online printouts either do not specifically relate to the petitioner's field or do not 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
provide information to which we can compare the petitioner's annual earning. Specifically, the 
simplyhired.com printout provides an average salary "for all jobs with the term 'actor' anywhere in 
the job listing." The information captured thus excludes compensation for acting jobs not posted in 
a job listing and likely includes stage acting jobs, which is not a field in which the petitioner claims 
extraordinary ability. See generally Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954 (considering a professional 
golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also Grimson, 934 F. Supp. at 968 
(considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforcers); Muni, 891 F. Supp. at 444-45 (N. 
D. Ill. 1995) (comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). 
Similarly, the printouts from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics provide information relating to the 
average hourly wage, not information relating to annual earning. As the petitioner has not provided 
information relating to how many hours she has worked to earn at least $250,000 annually, the 
petitioner has not provided information relating to her hourly compensation, such that we may 
compare it to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics printouts. 
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). 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or 
record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(x). 
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, 401 F.3d at 1228; Hristov, 2011 WL 
4711885 at *9. 
C. Summary 
In addition to the evidence discussed above, the petitioner has submitted a number of vague and 
solicited letters from colleagues that state in general terms that the petitioner is a talented actress and 
that praise her work and acting abilities. The petitioner has not specifically indicated which criteria, 
if any, the letters establish. We have considered all evidence in the record and conclude that the 
petitioner has failed to submit sufficient relevant, probative evidence to satisfy the 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 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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
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.5 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting three types of evidence. Kazarian, 596 F.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. 
5 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)(1), 204(b); DHS 
Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.P.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.P.R.§ 103.1(t)(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).