dismissed EB-1A Case: Voice Acting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 05, 2024 In Re: 30556460 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a voice actor, 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 Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not satisfy 
at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the 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 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. 
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 a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award) or qualifying 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established receipt of 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). 
In denying the petition, the Director determined the Petitioner did not fulfill any of the four claimed 
categories of evidence. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains his qualification for the four previously 
claimed criteria. For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner did not establish he meets at least 
three categories of evidence. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
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 
necessa,y translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
USCIS first determines whether the published material was related to the person and the person's 
specific work in the field for which classification is sought. 1 The published material should be about 
the person, relating to the person's work in the field, not just about the person's employer and the 
employer's work or another organization and that organization's work. 2 USCIS then determines 
whether the publication qualifies as a professional publication, major trade publication, or other major 
media publication. 3 
The Petitioner maintains that he satisfies this criterion based upon an article dated 2016 posted 
on tvefamosos.uol.com.br. The article, however, does not reflect published material about the 
1 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l ), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
2 Id. 
3 Id. 
2 
Petitioner relating to his work. Instead, the article is about the an reaction of Brazilian fans to a 
change in the dubbers for the sixth season of the HBO series The article mentions 
the Petitioner was the dubbing director for the former studio, and quotes him as stating 
that he "gets complaints from the audience about the dubbing." The person and the person's work 
need not be the only subject of the material; published material that covers a broader topic but includes 
a substantial discussion of the person's work in the field and mentions the person in connection to the 
work may be considered material about the person relating to the person's work. 4 See also, 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). Here, the article reports on the show with a 
brief mention of the Petitioner and therefore, does not demonstrate published material about him. 
The Petitioner also did not demonstrate the article was published in a professional or major trade 
publication or other major medium. In evaluating whether a submitted publication is a professional 
publication, major trade publication, or major media, relevant factors include the intended audience 
(for professional and major trade publications) and the relative circulation, readership, or viewership 
(for major trade publications and other major media). 5 Although the Petitioner submitted online traffic 
and rankings from Similar Web for uol.com.br, he did not provide documentation to establish the major 
media status of the website that published the article, tvefamosos.uol.com.br. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted summaries of the films _________ and the 
puppet theater production ____________ that accompanied the announcement of 
their showing in the publications oparana.com.br, vivoplay.com.br, cbtij.org.br, and 
diariogaucho.clierbs.com.br. While the articles identify the Petitioner as a voice actor on these 
projects, they are not articles about him but rather summaries of the productions he dubbed. Again, 
articles that are not about a petitioner do not fulfill this regulatory criterion. In addition, these articles 
do not include the required authors of the material. 6 
Finally, the Petitioner submitted a radiofobia.com.br screenshot of a video posted by I I from 
"Almir Marques Interviews." The screenshot indicates that the video reflected an interview of the 
Petitioner broadcasted on 93 FM de Rio do Sul, Santa Catarina. However, the Petitioner did not 
provide a transcription of the video demonstrating published material about him relating to his work. 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not establish that the show "Almir Marques Interviews" represents a 
major medium. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not show he meets every element of this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk or video sales. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 
USCIS determines whether the person has enjoyed commercial successes in the performing arts. 7 The 
Petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on his having dubbed characters in the Portuguese 
Brazilian-language versions of productions, including: I I(2003) I 
4 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). 
5Id. 
6 Id. 
7 Id. 
3 
I 
_________ 
1(2011-2016) (TV series 
1(2003-20 09)( animated TV series 
2003-2009); I I(2011-2016 TV series 
I(2000-2003) (Animated TV series 
I (2013-2021) (TV senes 
1(2001-2012) (animated TV seriesl and 
1(2005-2021) (TV series I The Petitioner submitted information from IMDb 
for some of these productions showing their gross worldwide revenue. 8 
This criterion focuses on volume of sales and box office receipts as a measure of the person's 
commercial success in the performing arts. 9 Therefore, the mere fact that a person has recorded and 
released musical compilations or performed in theatrical, motion picture, or television productions 
would be insufficient, in and of itself, to meet this criterion. 10 The evidence must show that the volume 
of sales and box office receipts reflect the person's commercial success relative to others involved in 
similar pursuits in the performing arts. 1 1 
While the Petitioner has performed as a voice actor for TV series and films, he has not shown that the 
success of those motion picture and television productions was attributable to his specific work as a 
voice actor. Furthermore, he has not demonstrated that his television or film voice acting 
performances have attracted substantial audiences or that his dubbing work generated significant sales. 
As the Director stated, in order to meet this criterion, the evidence must show that the volume of sales 
and box office receipts reflect a petitioner's commercial successes relative to others involved in similar 
pursuits in the performing arts. Here, the record does not include evidence identifying the Petitioner 
as having commercial successes relative to other performing artists. Nor is the evidence sufficient to 
demonstrate that the commercial successes of the aforementioned television and film productions in 
which he performed were mainly because of the Petitioner's work. Without additional evidence, the 
Petitioner did not establish he has achieved commercial successes. 
8 We note that because there are no assurances about the reliability of the content from this open, user-edited internet site, 
we will not assign weight to information from imdb.com. Cf Laamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th 
Cir. 2008) (finding that another open, user-edited internet site, Wikipedia, lacks reliability of the content). See also 
imdb.com: 
Disclaimer of Warranties and Limitation of Liability: The IMDB Services and all information, content, 
materials, products (including software) and other services included on or otherwise made available to 
you through the IMDB services are provided by IMDB on an "as is" and "as available" basis. IMDB 
makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation of the IMDB 
services or the information, content, materials, products (including software) or other services included 
on or otherwise available to you through the IMDB services. You expressly agree that your use of the 
!MOB services is at your sole risk. !MOB reserves the right to withdraw any !MOB services or delete 
any information from the !MOB services at any time in its discretion. 
Without corroborating evidence, such as industry or media reports or other credible, independent sources to support this 
infonnation, we cannot make a dete1mination regarding the productions' relative successes. 
9 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). 
10Id. 
11 Id. 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not establish he satisfies the two categories of evidence discussed above. Although 
the Petitioner also argues eligibility for two additional criteria, pertaining to judging under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and display under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii), we need not reach these additional 
grounds because the Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). We also need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Accordingly, we reserve these issues. 12 
Nevertheless, we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding 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 those progressing toward the top. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 
953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) ( concluding that even major league level athletes do not automatically 
meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability,"); Visinscaia, 
4 F. Supp. 3d at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted) ( finding that the extraordinary ability 
designation is "extremely restrictive by design,"); Hamal v. Dep 't ofHomeland Sec. (Hamal II), No. 
19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021), aff'd, 2023 WL 1156801 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 
31, 2023) ( determining that EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very small percentage of prospective 
immigrants"). See also Hamal v. Dep 't of Homeland Sec. (Hamal I), No. 19-cv-2534, 2020 WL 
2934954, at * 1 (D.D.C. June 3, 2020) ( citing Kazarian, 596 at 1122 (upholding denial of petition of a 
published theoretical physicist specializing in non-Einsteinian theories of gravitation) (stating that 
"[c]ourts have found that even highly accomplished individuals fail to win this designation")); Lee v. 
Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (finding that "arguably one of the most famous 
baseball players in Korean history" did not qualify for visa as a baseball coach). 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown the significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained 
national or international acclaim or 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 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). The record does not contain sufficient evidence establishing the Petitioner among the 
upper echelon in his field. For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his 
eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated 
reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
12 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, n.7 
( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is othe1wise ineligible). 
5