dismissed EB-1A Case: Performing Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-B-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 9, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a performing artist and actor, 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 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that although the Petitioner satisfied three of the initial evidentiary criteria, as 
required, he did not show sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrate that he is among 
the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits further documentation and a brief, arguing that he meets an 
additional criterion and has sustained the required acclaim and has risen to the very top of his field. 
Upon de nova 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 in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
Matter of C-B-
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 
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 articles). 
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. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where 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 ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
11. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is an actor who has mainly performed in Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United 
States. As the Petitioner has not established that he has received a major, internationally recognized 
award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The Director found that the Petitioner met the following three criteria: published material under 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii), judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), and artistic display under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii). The record reflects that the Petitioner served as a judge at an independent film 
festival and has performed in theaters and at festivals. Accordingly, we agree with the Director that 
the Petitioner fulfilled the judging and artistic display criteria. However, for the reasons discussed 
later in this decision, we do not concur with the Director's determination that the Petitioner satisfied 
the published material criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets one additional criterion, discussed below. We have 
reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that the 
Beneficiary satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
2 
.
Matter of C-B-
A Evidentiary Criteria 
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 Petitioner claims to meet this criterion based on being a cast member in a production that won an 
and a Specifically, he submitted documentation reflecting 
that the theatrical production, received an for " 
l" and a for " . " In addition, he 
references a 2003 non-precedent decision and argues that "team" awards satisfy this criterion. 
However, the referenced 2003 decision was not published as a precedent and therefore do not bind 
USCIS officers in future adjudications. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). Non-precedent decisions apply existing 
law and policy to the specific facts of the individual case, and may be distinguished based on the 
evidence in the record of proceedings, the issues considered, and applicable law and policy. Here, the 
Petitioner did not show that the specific facts and circumstances of those cases are strikingly similar 
to those of the present case. 
In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate his receipt of lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 1 Here, the 
Petitioner did not receive an or rather, the production 
garnered the awards. The description of this type of evidence in the regulation provides that the focus 
should be on "the alien's" receipt of the awards or prizes, as opposed to his or her employer's receipt 
of the awards or prizes. 2 Moreover, the Petitioner did not show how the awards for" 
" and " __________ '' are in his field of endeavor, performing and acting. 
In addition, the evidence offered by the Petitioner regarding both the and the 
reflect that they also bestow specific, individual awards. For instance, 
they grant awards to best actors and actresses in supporting and leading roles in multiple categories. 
Most relevant here, the Petitioner did not receive an or for 
his cast or acting role in We note that while some award categories are for the production, 
individuals are also specifically credited. For example, the 2011 named the winner of 
"Best Costume Design" to designed by Here, 
and received the award because both were named recipients as opposed to the Petitioner 
who was not recognized or mentioned in the " _________ " or " 
" categories. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that he meets this criterion. 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1 , Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJJ -14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https:/ /www.uscis.gov/po licymanual/HTML/Po licy Manual. html. 
2 Id. 
3 
Matter of C-B-
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). 
Although the Director determined that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion, we disagree. Specifically, 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate published material about him in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media, which include the title, date, and author. 3 The record reflects that 
he submitted two articles about him published in Gazzetta d'Alba; however, neither article contains 
the required author of the material. In fact, in his appeal brief, he indicates the authors as "N/A" (not 
applicable). 
Nevertheless, the Petitioner offered screenshots from Similar Web regarding rankings and "traffic 
overview" for gazzettadalba.it. For example, Similar Web reflects that the website has a global ranking 
of 448,451, a country ranking of 12,992, and total visits of "155.04K." However, the Petitioner did 
not demonstrate that the articles were posted on gazzettadalba.it. Further, although he provides 
evidence relating to general Internet traffic estimators and methodology, the Petitioner did not show 
the significance of gazzettadalba.it's rankings and viewing statistics or explain how such information 
reflects status as a major medium. 4 As it relates to Gazzetta d'Alba, the Petitioner provided 
screenshots from Wikipedia, which claimed that Gazzetta d'Alba is a local, weekly publication with a 
circulation of 15,500. We note that Wikipedia is an online, open source, collaborative encyclopedia 
that explicitly states it cannot guarantee the validity of its content. See General Disclaimer, Wikipedia 
(April 9, 2019), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer; Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 
F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). Further, the Petitioner did not establish that such circulation figures 
represent major medium status consistent with this regulatory criterion. 5 
Moreover, the Petitioner submitted an article about him published in fl Corriere. However, the 
Petitioner did not include the required date and author of the material. In addition, the Petitioner did 
not present documentary evidence establishing that fl Corriere is a professional or major trade 
publication. Similarly, the Petitioner provided a screenshot from ilprofumodelladolcevita.com 
reflecting an interview of him without offering evidence demonstrating that the website is a major 
medium. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner submitted articles posted on the following websites: varsity.co.uk, 
edinburghguide.com, and festmag.co.uk. However, while the articles briefly mention the Petitioner 
one time as an actor or performer, they are not about him but reviews for shows and plays. Articles 
that are not about a petitioner do not fulfill this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 
2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at * 1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles regarding 
a show are not about the actor). 6 Moreover, for the reasons discussed above, although the Petitioner 
3 See users Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7. 
4 See users Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7 (finding that evidence of published material in professional 
or major trade publication or in other major media publications should establish that the circulation (on-line or in print) is 
high compared to other circulation statistics and show the intended audience of the publication). 
5 Id. 
6 See also users Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7 (providing that the published material should be about 
4 
Matter of C-B-
presented screenshots from Similar Web relating to Internet rankings and traffic, he did not explain 
the significance of such statistics and how they reflect the websites' status as major media. 
Finally, the record contains a screenshot from Bouquet TV posted on You Tube along with a letter from 
the television station indicating an episode "featuring [the Petitioner], has been programmed and 
broadcast[ ed] in our circuit," and Bouquet TV encompasses multiple television channels, including 
Italia 2. The Petitioner, however, did not provide a transcript of the episode reflecting published 
material about him. Further, although he submitted a screenshot from Wikipedia regarding a brief 
background for Italia 2, the Petitioner did not establish that the episode aired on Italia 2, nor did he 
show that Wikipedia demonstrates that Italia 2, as well as Bouquet TV, are major media. 
Because the Petitioner did not establish that his evidence fulfills the eligibility requirements, we 
withdraw the findings of the Director for this criterion. 
B. 0-1 N onimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Petitioner received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USC IS has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant 
visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude USC IS from denying 
an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard - statute, regulations, 
and case law. Many Form 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. 2003); 
IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd v. Sava, 724 
F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, our authority 
over the USCIS service centers, the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petition, is comparable 
to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has 
approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an individual, we are not bound to follow that finding 
in the adjudication of another immigration petition. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 
98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
the petitioner relating to his or her work in the field, not just about his or her employer or another organization with whom 
he or she is associated). 
5 
Matter of C-B-
international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b)(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and he is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. In visa petition proceedings, the petitioner bears the burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofC-B-, ID# 2755335 (AAO Apr. 9, 2019)