dismissed EB-1A Case: Voice Over Artist

MATTER OF A-L-O-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 2, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a multilingual voice over artist, 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 )(1 )(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 1-140, Immigrant Petition for 
Alien Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had not shown that he met any of the ten initial 
evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that he qualifies as an individual 
of extraordinary ability. 
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 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 A-L-O-
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). Alternatively, he or she must provide documentation that meets 
at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items 
such as awards, memberships, and published material in certain media) . 
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. USC JS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0) 
(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); R(ial v. USCJS, 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a multilingual voice over artist. As he has not received a major, internationally 
recognized award , the record must demonstrate that he satisfies at least three of the ten criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition , the Acting Director found that the Petitioner 
had not met any of the following six criteria raised by the Petitioner: awards , published material , 
display, leading or critical role, high salary, and commercial success under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) , 
(iii), (vii), (viii), (ix), and (x), respectively. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets the 
criteria for awards, published material, leading or critical role, and high salary. Upon reviewing all 
of the evidence in the record, we find that the record does not support a finding that the Petitioner 
satisfies at least three criteria. 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt <f lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or award~.for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Acting Director held that the Petitioner had not established that he met this criterion because he 
was not named as a recipient of the awards for the film or advertising projects in which he played a 
role. The record contains documentation about the award at the 2012 
with evidence demonstrating that he was listed among the 
creative team members credited in the campaign. The record reflects that the 
won the award for the 
, co-chief executive officer and executive creative director for Mexico , 
which oversaw the campaign , states that the Petitioner ' s talents helped the organization win multiple 
awards , including the ____ award in 2012. ____ states,'' -~- 1s 
2 
.
Matter of A-L-O-
the world's biggest annual awards show and festival for professionals m the creative 
communications industry." 
In a letter from , the creative director for during the 
campaign, she states that she knew she needed to request the Petitioner for the voiceover and 
original music for the campaign. She indicates, "[The Petitioner] was an integral part of this creative 
team and without his participation and role in this project, we may not have receive the multiple 
international awards and accolades to this campaign." We find that the record indicates that the 
Petitioner's work was sufficiently tied to the success of the overall production for him to be 
considered a recipient of this award. The record contains media coverage pertaining to the 
establishing that this represents a lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized award for excellence in the field. Therefore, the Petitioner has established 
that he meets this criterion. 
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 class(fication 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 record contains the transcript of the in which the Petitioner was interviewed 
as a guest on the program. However, according to a letter from the producer and 
director of the Petitioner was not interviewed until November 2017, and the 
interviews would not be published until January 2018. The Petitioner must establish that all 
eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing 
and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Thus, the Petitioner cannot establish 
eligibility with the interviews that were published after the filing of the instant petition. 
The record contains an article published on the website Style by Shock Visual entitled, 
[the Petitioner]" about his work as a voice over artist 
and musician. The record also contains articles about the Petitioner published in EstiloDF as well as 
on ovaciones.com and informate.com. While these articles are about the Petitioner and his work in 
the field, the Petitioner has not established that they are professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. The record does not contain evidence regarding the target audience or the 
circulation details for these publications. While the Petitioner notes that his own website averages 
7,469 hits per month, he has not established that the material on his website constitutes published 
material about him relating to his work in the field in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. Therefore , the Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion . 
3 
.
Matter of A-L-O-
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
For a leading role, the evidence must establish that the petitioner is or was a leader.1 If a critical 
role, the evidence must establish that the petitioner has contributed in a way that is of significant 
importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. A supporting role may 
be considered "critical" if the petitioner's performance in the role is or was important in that way. It 
is not the title of the petitioner's role, but rather her performance in the role that determines whether 
the role is or was critical.2 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he has performed a critical role for multiple international 
brands. He states in the appeal brief that "a voice-over artist is critical to the success of an 
advertising or public service campaign." states that during his tenure at he 
has worked with the Petitioner in multiple campaigns for 
among others." He indicates that 
production services have helped with multiple awards for the 
his voice over talent and music 
and campaigns. 
The Petitioner contends that his work on the campaign represents a critical role, noting in 
his brief that articles in the record demonstrate that not only did this campaign win awards but "also 
helped champion the cause of encouraging employment of many disabled Mexicans in Mexico." 
The Petitioner does not provide evidence from the demonstrating that his role 
was critical to the activities of that organization or that it has a distinguished reputation. Rather, he 
provides evidence from the advertising company that ran the campaign. 
states, "[ the Petitioner] was an integral part of this creative team and without his participation and 
role in this project, we may not [have] received the multiple international awards and accolades 
attached to this campaign." Likewise, states that "the participation of [the Petitioner] 
was fundamental because our client was able to reach its goal, which was to raise 
employment offers for people with disabilities." The record does not demonstrate that the 
executives at can attest to the significance of the Petitioner's impact on its clients' activities. 
Similarly, with respect to the campaign, the record does not establish how the Petitioner's role 
was of significant importance to its company. 
The Petitioner claims that he has provided leading or critical roles to other companies. 
states in his letter that in Mexico the Petitioner "is the voice of 
among others." He then adds that in the United States, the Petitioner "is the main 
voice of brands like and the state of California." In a letter from 
founder of a voice over agency called , she states that the Petitioner 
"has been the institutional voice of in Mexico for six years." We note that the record 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1. Eru/11otiun of EviJence S11h111itted 1vith Certain Form 1-/-10 
Petitions; Revision.1· IO the 11dj11Jicator's Field Alanual {AFMJ Clwpter 22.}, .,/f,',\-1 Update ADI/-/./ 10 (Dec. 22.2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/defau lt/fi les/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/i-140-evidence-pm-6002-005-1.pdf. 
2 Id. 
4 
.
Matter of A-L-O-
contains a receipt for voice over services the Petitioner provided to but he has not 
shown that the amount he was paid for these services is an indication that his work was critical to the 
organization. He has not provided other evidence from demonstrating how his work 
has impacted the company to show that it was of significant importance to the outcome of the 
organization's activities. 
The record contains a letter from who partnered with m 
to connect individuals at all levels of voice talent with the "industry's leading coaches." She 
indicates that the Petitioner "was and still is, exactly the kind of coach we require in this new project 
and he has certainly proven to be an incredible asset to the organization." While and 
speak highly of the Petitioner's expertise as a voice over artist, this evidence tends to show 
that was a featured guest on this program rather than a regular contributor. The Petitioner has not 
shown how his contributions have been of significant importance to the organization's activities, or 
that ____ is an organization with a distinguished reputation. 
The Petitioner also references a letter by , a Latin America Spanish voice over artist 
and Director of He states that she selected him to be one of ten male voices in .a voice 
bank for However, her letter does not indicate that he is a part of or what his role 
entails or how his work has impacted the organization's activities. Additionally, the record does not 
demonstrate that has a distinguished reputation. 
In a letter from the director of show production with the and director 
of media at he states that the Petitioner has completed all of his Spanish translation 
and voiceover work for all of his projects. He states, "My clients love him, his work is top notch, 
and we will continue to request his services for many years to come." While this shows that the 
Petitioner provides high quality services to these companies, the record does not demonstrate that his 
translation or voice over services are of significant importance to the outcome of these 
organizations' activities. The record does not demonstrate how much of a presence these companies 
have in Spanish speaking countries and how the Petitioner's services contribute to this aspect of 
these companies. In addition, the record does not demonstrate that or 
are organizations with distinguished reputations. Therefore, the record does not demonstrate that the 
Petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other sign(ficantly high 
remuneration.for services, in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The record contains documents from the Petitioner's accountant attesting to his yearly salary for 
2013 through 2016. The record lacks evidence corroborating the Petitioner's income. The record 
contains samples of invoices of some voice over services he provided, but the Petitioner has not 
shown the complete extent of his salary each year. Even if the record did contain this evidence, or 
additional corroborating details from his accountant, this amounts to salaries of $82,710 for 2013, 
$93,135 for 2014, $29,406 for 2015, and $61,898 for 2016. The Petitioner indicates that the voice 
actor website at gravyforthebrain.com states that the top ten percent of voice actors earn $90,000 and 
above. We note that this document is undated and does not explain the source of its information . 
Matter of A-L-O-
While the record contains documentation from the U.S. Department of Labor indicating that the top 
ten percent of actors earn over $100 per hour as of May 2016, the record does not contain sufficient 
evidence of the sources of the Petitioner's annual salary in that year to use this benchmark to 
establish that he meets this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because he has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a 
qualifying one-time achievement, or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), or comparable evidence establishing his eligibility. Thus, we do not 
need to fully address the totality of the materials in a final merits determination. 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-L-O-, ID# 1846296 (AAO Jan. 2, 2019) 
6