dismissed EB-1A Case: Theater

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-Y-S-. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 4, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a theater professor, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 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 Acting Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for 
Alien Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary 
criteria, of which she must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief, arguing that she meets at 
least three of the criteria: 
Upon de nova review, ,we will dismiss th~ appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(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 111 the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii)' the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work 111 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 A-Y-S-
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 ~eld of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCJS, 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 l&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner indicates employment as a theatrical professor at the in 
Egypt. As the Petitioner has not established that she has received a major, internationally recognized 
award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Director found that· the Petitioner met the following two criteria: judging under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The record reflects thatthe 
Petitioner judged two theatrical festivals and authored a scholarly publication. Accordingly, we 
agree with the Director's decision for these two criteria. In addition, the record demonstrates that the 
Petitioner has directed theatrical performances at festivals thereby fulfilling the artistic display 
criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). Therefore, the Petitioner has established that she satisfies 
at least three regulatory criteria , and we will evaluate the totality of the evidence in the context of the 
final merits determination below. ' 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence , we will evaluate whether she has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, her sustained national or international acclaim 
and that she is one of the small. percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor , and that her 
2 
.
Matter of A-Y-S-
· 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 her successes are sufficient to demonstrate that she 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 her eligibility. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner received a bachelor of arts degree in accounting from 
in 1995; a bachelor of arts degree and a diploma of post graduate studies in acting and 
directing from the ___ == in 1999 and 2003, respectively; and a doctor of 
philosophy from in 2013. According to her curriculum vitae, the 
Petitioner was a teaching assistant at from 2003 - 2013. In addition, the Petitioner held various 
positions at , from 2009 - 2013, such as Arabic instructor, graduate administrative associate, 
. video editing assistant, and graduate research assistant. Most recently, the Petitioner maintained that 
she was "The Head" of in Egypt from November 2014 -
June 2015, and has been a theatrical professor at since Fall 2013. 1 As mentioned above, the 
Petitioner judged others within her field, authored a scholarly publication, and displayed her work at 
artistic exhibitions. The record, however, does not demonstrate that her 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). 
Regarding her service as a judge of others, an evaluation of the significance of her 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 Petitioner provided 
evidence showing that she served as a judge at the in December 2013 and 
at the in May 2016. However, the Petitioner did not establish that 
her two judging instances place her among the small percentage at the very top of her field. See 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). She did not show, for example, how her judging experience compares to 
others at the top of the field. 
in addition, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that her two judging occurrences in 2013 and 2016 
contribute to a finding that she has a "career of acclaimed work in the field". as contemplated by 
Congress or indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim. See H.R. Rep. No. 
at 59 and section 203(b )( f)(A) of the Act. The Petitioner did not show, for instance, that she 
garnered wide attention from the field based on her work as a festival judge. Without evidence that 
sets her apart from others in her field, such as evidence that ·she served as a judge of acclaimed 
individuals or of prestigious national or international competitions rather than aspiring students or 
amateurs , she did not demonstrate that she "is one of that small percentage who [ha:s] risen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F:R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
1 The record reflects that the Petitioner last .entered the Unite.d Sta.res as a visitor on June 21, 2016. The Petitioner has 
not indicated or documented any employment since her arrival in the United States. 
.
Matter of A-Y-S-
Likewise, publication of scholarly work does not automatically place one at the top of the field. 
Here, the Petitioner presented evidence showing that she authored one book, 
, in 2013. The Petitioner, however, has not 
demonstrated that this publication record is consistent with having a "career of acclaimed work." 
H.R. Rep. No. at 59. In addition, the commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for 
aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present 
more extensive documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 
30704 (July 5, 1991 ). She has not shown that her authorship of one scholarly publication is 
reflective of being among the small percentage at the very top of her field or demonstrates the 
required sustained national or international acclaim for this highly restrictive classification. See 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
Moreover, the citation history or other evidence of the influence of her book can be an indicator to 
determine the .impact and recognition that her work has had on the field and whether .such influence 
has been sustained. For example, numerous independent citations for an article or book authored by 
a petitioner may provide solid evidence that her work has been recognized and that others in her 
field have been influenced by her work. Such an analysis at the final merits determination stage is 
appropriate pursuant to Kazarian. 596 F. 3d at 1122. Although the Petitioner submitted screenshots 
from websites offering the availability to purchase the book, such as amazon.com, ebay.com, and 
thriftbooks.com, she did not show that the field has recognized her book as being highly influential 
or as a widely used, standard source. Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that her book attracted 
a level of interest in her field commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim. See 
section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. The Petitioner, for example, did not provide evidence of the 
citation of her book by others or sales figures to show that .her work is recognized as being at the t9p 
of her field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). r 
Regarding the display of her work, the Petitioner indicated that she directed four plays, such as 
acted in six plays and three television shows, and edited three films. 
As it is expected that directors and actresses would exhibit their artistic work in front of audiences, 
we will evaluate the extent to which the display of her work is reflective of acclaim consistent with 
this classification. While the Petitioner presented evidence showing her participation as a director 
and actress, she did not demonstrate, for example, that her work brought wide praise from .critics, 
drew notable crowds, raised attendance, or were responsible for the success or standing of the 
events.2 The Petitioner's evidence does not distinguish her performances or work from others in her 
field or show that it reflects a "career of acclaimed work in the field ." H.R. Rep. No . I 01-723 at 59. 
Beyond the three . criteria that the Petitioner satisfied; we· consider additional documentation in the 
record in order to determine whether the totality of the evidence . demonstrates eligibility. Here, for 
the reasons discussed below, we find that the evidence neither fulfills the requirements of any further 
2 Although the Petitioner has experience in the theatrical field, she did not claim, nor does the record reflect, commercial 
successes under the regul,ation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 
4 
.
Matter of A-Y-S-
evidentiary criteria nor contributes to an overall finding that the Petitioner has su~tained national or 
international acclaim and is among the small percentage of the top of her field. 
. . 
As it relates to her awards, the Petitioner provided certificates acknowledging her service and 
participation, as well as financial aid grants to attend higher education. For example, the Petitioner 
submitted an certificate "for Outstanding Contribution and Service in recognition of [her] 
contributions and dedication to the Department of Theatre's Video Archives," a letter from the 
indicating that she received "an Egyptian government scholarship for up to 4 
year[s] in the USA to obtain her Ph.D. degree," and a certificate from the 
for "her effort and participation in the ."3 However, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that the field recognizes any of these . as prizes or awards for 
excellence. Here, the record does not reflect that she received prestigious awards against acclaimed 
competition throughout her field or was judged by accomplished directors and actors. 
The Petitioner also claims membership with the However, the 
Petitioner did not establish that her membership requires outstanding achievements , as judged by 
recognized national or international experts. 4 Further , as she has not shown , for example , that she is 
a member of associations that limit membership to artists with renowned endeavors, her membership 
'-- evidence does not contribute to a finding that she has sustained national or international acclaim. 
See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of t~e Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
In addition, the Petitioner maintains that she offered four articles reflecting published material about . 
her in major media. While two articles mention the Petitioner as the head 
of they are about the art center. The other two articles 
·reflect published !Tiaterial about her. However , she did not establish that any of the articles were 
published in major media. 5 Moreover , the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the articles are 
consistent with the sustained national or international acclaim necessary for this highly restrictive 
classification. See section 203(b )( 1 )(A) of the Act. In addition, she did not show that her limited 
press coverage is indicative of a level of success consistent with being among "that small percentage 
who [has] risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F .R. § 204.S(h )(2). 
Further, with respect to her c;ontributions to the field, the Petitioner states that she submitted letters 
to show that her contributions "are original , unique and will bring great benefit to the United States 
_ of America." The letters, however , make general asse1tions repeating the statute and regulations 
without providing spe•cific information explaining how her work has greatly impacted the overall 
field. For instance, ________ claimed that the Petitioner "delivered solid 
I 
3 While we discuss a sampling of her awards, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 According to the evidence submitted by the Petitioner, full membership requires individuals to have· received a 
doctorate re_lated to Middle East studies, have taught Middle East studies, or who have made a scholarly contribution to 
Middle East studies. 
5 The Petitioner provides screenshots from Wikipedia, an online, open source; collaborative encyclopedia that explicitly 
states it cannot guarantee the validity of its content. See General Disclaimer. Wikipedia (January 31 , 2019), 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer ; Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F."3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). 
5 
.
Matter of A-Y-S-
' performances that highlighted her diverse talents" and "[h ]er research and abilities will continue to 
substantially benefit the United States:" 6 did not show how the Petitioner's 
diverse talents have impacted the field or how her research has already benefited the field. 
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.). Here, the letters do not 
\ ' 
provide sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include sufficient corroborating 
evidence, to show that the Petitioner is viewed by the overall field, rather than by a solicited few, as 
being among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
Moreover, as discussed above, the Petitioner served as "The Head" of However, the 
Petitioner did not establish that enjoys a distinguished reputation. In addition, the Petitioner 
did not establish that her work at this organization has been recognized by the field as being 
significantly important or viewed as unusually influential. The submitted documentation, for 
instance, does not reflect th~t the Petitioner has somehow impacted the field through her work at this 
establishment 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). · 
The record as a wh()le, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Petitioner's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, 
intended for individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather than those progressing 
toward the top. 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 l&N Dec. at 954. While the Petitioner need not establish that there is 
no one more accomplished to qualify for the classification sought, we find the record insufficient to 
demonstrate that she has sustained national or international acclaim _and is among the small 
percentage at the top of her field. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 7 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons dlscussed above, the Petitioner has not established her eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
· Cite as Matter of A-Y-S-, ID# 1972670 (AAO Feb. 4, 2019) 
6 Although we reference a sample letter, we have reviewed and considered each one in the record. 
7 As the Petitioner has not demonstrated her extraordinary ability under section 203(b )( I )(A)(i) of the Act, we need not 
consider whether she intends to continue working in the area of extraordinary ability under section 203(b )( I )(A)(ii). 
6