remanded EB-1A Case: Acting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 12796067 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : DEC . 31, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the record 
established that the Petitioner satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements for this classification, he 
did not establish, as required, that he has sustained national or international acclaim and that he is 
among that small percentage at the very top of his field. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
Upon de nova review we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for the entry of 
a new decision consistent with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) 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 pet1t10ner can demonstrate 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through 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 sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria 
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 
The Petitioner is an actor who works in the film, theatre and television industry in Bangladesh. 
Because 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 three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). Specifically, the Director determined, and the record supports, that the Petitioner has received 
nationally recognized awards, that he and his work were featured in published materials in major 
media, and that he authored a scholarly article in a professional publication. See 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii) and (vi). The Director determined that the Petitioner claimed, but did not meet, 
the criterion related to display of his work at artistic exhibitions or showcases under 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
Because the Petitioner met three of the regulatory criteria, the Director proceeded to a final merits 
determination. In a final merits determination, the Director must analyze all of a petitioner's 
accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if their successes are sufficient 
to demonstrate that they have extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) 
of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 1 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director's decision reflects that he did not consider all the 
evidence together in its totality in determining whether the Petitioner is eligible for the benefit sought. 
We agree with that assertion as the final merits determination section of the decision contains few 
references to the submitted evidence. For example, although the Director determined that the 
Petitioner satisfied both the awards and published materials criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and 
(iii), the Director did not mention or weigh the evidence related to his awards and media coverage in 
1 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Ce11ain Form 1-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADll-14 4 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
2 
the final merits discussion. In fact, the only evidence specifically referenced in the final merits 
determination is the Petitioner's co-authored scholarly article submitted under 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(vi). The Director's decision rests primarily on a conclusion that the Petitioner had not 
show that "authorship of one scholarly article is reflective of [his] being among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field." 
In addition, the Petitioner asserts that the Director provided a confusing and self-contradictory analysis 
of the display criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) and maintains that he submitted sufficient 
evidence to establish that he meets this criterion. S ecificall , the Petitioner claimed eligibility based 
on the screening of his film at Film Festival and based on his live 
theatrical performances at the ,__ _____ _.Festival in Bangladesh. 
The Director found that the evidence submitted in support of this criterion did not meet its 
requirements for two reasons: first, the Petitioner's work did not fall into the "visual arts" such as 
painting, sculpting and photography; and second, that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that "the 
exhibition or showcase is itself of distinction." The Director noted that "displaying work at festivals 
is not a uniquely extraordinary accomplishment or associated with those at the apex of the industry." 
However, as the Petitioner states on appeal, neither of these requirements appear in this regulatory 
criterion. USCIS may not utilize novel substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5. See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1221, citing Love Korean Church v. Chertoff, 549 F.3d 
749, 758 (9th Cir.2008). 
The purpose of a film or theatre festival is typically to showcase or exhibit films or plays as artistic 
works. Accordingly, the Director should re-evaluate the evidence submitted to determine whether the 
Petitioner has satisfied the plain language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). A 
determination as to whether the evidence submitted under this criterion supports the Petitioner's 
extraordinary ability claim should be made in the final merits determination. 
Finally, in addition to not weighing the evidence submitted in support of the nationally-recognized 
awards, published materials and display criteria, the Director's final merits discussion disregarded 
evidence that the Petitioner had submitted in support of his petition. Such evidence included, in part, 
multiple reference letters, evidence that the Petitioner served as the I I of the actors' union in 
Bangladesh, and evidence of other awards and honors he received during his lengthy career. Because 
the Director did not consider any of this evidence in the final merits analysis, the decision does not 
sufficiently address why the Petitioner has not demonstrated that that he is an individual of 
extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
An officer must folly explain the reasons for denying a visa petition in order to allow a petitioner a 
fair opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a 
decision must folly explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful 
opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). 
Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for farther review and 
entry of a new decision. As the Director already determined that the Petitioner satisfied at least three 
criteria, the new decision should include an analysis of the totality of the record evaluating whether 
3 
the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or 
international acclaim and whether the record demonstrates that he is one of the small percentage at the 
very top of the field of endeavor, and that his achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation. 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. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4