remanded EB-1A Case: Acting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF Y-S-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 3, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an actress, 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. 
Following the Petitioner's timely response to the Director of the Nebraska Service Center's request 
for evidence, the Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of 
the initial evidentiary criteria , of which she must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence asserts that she meets at least three 
of the ten criteria and is eligible for the benefit sought. 
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)(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 . 
Matter of Y-S-
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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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 of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
As noted above, the Petitioner is an actress. As she has not received a major, internationally 
recognized award, the record must demonstrate that she satisfies at least three of the ten criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner satisfied the criteria for membership and for judging at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) and (iv), respectively. Evidence in the record establishes the Petitioner's 
membership in an artists' union whose bylaws indicate that the organization requires outstanding 
achievements as determined by its own experts. The record also includes correspondence confirming 
that the Petitioner served as a judge in beauty and talent competitions. Accordingly we agree with the 
Director that the Petitioner meets the criteria for membership and judging. The Director concluded, 
however, that the Petitioner had not shown she met an additional criterion and therefore was not 
eligible for the benefit sought. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the "previously submitted evidence ... establishes that" she meets 
at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria found at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). She farther notes that 
the Director "overlooked a regulatory criteria [sic] of evidence of the alien's artistic contributions of 
major significance in the field that the [petitioner] claimed" ( emphasis in original). 1 
1 In May 2018, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) asking that the Petitioner provide additional documentation 
2 
Matter of Y-S-
As the Petitioner notes on appeal, the Director did not address the Petitioner's claim that she met the 
criterion for original contribution found at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). Accordingly, we will remand 
the matter for him to analyze the evidence submitted under that criterion. 
In addition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not met the published material criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), finding in part that the articles submitted by the Petitioner were not about 
her and her work in the field. However, upon review, we find that that at least one of the submitted 
articles ublished on ambebi. e was in fact about the Petitioner relating to her work in the field: D 
~--------------------------~ which profiles the actress and 
discusses her acting roles. Further, on appeal, the Petitioner provides comparative evidence about the 
monthly number of unique online visits to ambebi.ge, which the Director has not yet had an 
opportunity to consider. Therefore, we also remand this decision for the Director to determine whether 
the noted article about the Petitioner meets the remaining requirements of the published material 
criterion. 
If the Director determines that the Petitioner satisfies at least one additional criterion beyond the two 
already met, his decision should include an analysis of the totality of the record evaluating whether 
she has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, her sustained national or international 
acclaim and whether the record demonstrates that she is one of the small percentage at the very top of 
the field of endeavor, and that her achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 
596F.3dat 1119-20. 2 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be remanded to the Director for further action in accordance with this decision. It is 
the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U .S.C. § 1361. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
Cite as Matter ofY-S-, ID# 4315991 (AAO Oct. 3, 2019) 
related to the membership, published materials, scholarly articles, display, leading or critical role, and salary criteria found 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii-iv),(vi-ix), respectively. In her timely response to this RFE, the Petitioner provided additional 
evidence and asseited that she also met the criterion for original contribution at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
2 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 4 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (stating that USCIS officers should then evaluate the 
evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established by a 
preponderance of the evidence the required high level of expertise of the immigrant classification). 
3