Date of Decision: February 18, 2025
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1A Extraordinary Ability
Field of Expertise: Performing Arts – Voice Acting
Petitioner Information
Profession: Voice Actor
Field: Performing Arts – Voice Acting
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision (August 2023): Denied – Petitioner failed to establish at least three of ten evidentiary criteria.
Appeal Outcome (July 2024): Dismissed – AAO affirmed denial.
First Motion (August 2024): Denied – Motion to reopen and reconsider dismissed in November 2024.
Second Motion (February 2025): Dismissed – Current motion to reopen and reconsider denied.
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Claimed:
- Published Material About the Petitioner (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)) – Petitioner referenced articles such as uol.com.br but did not address specific evidentiary deficiencies (e.g., lack of detail on authorship, circulation, or clear focus on petitioner’s achievements).
- Commercial Success in the Performing Arts (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x)) – Submitted box office receipts and revenue records did not sufficiently link financial outcomes directly to petitioner’s voice acting contributions.
Other Criteria: Petitioner claimed additional recognition and judging activities but failed to provide new facts or documentary evidence with the latest motion.
Key Points from the Decision
- Second motion did not provide new facts or supporting evidence, as required for a motion to reopen.
- Petitioner alleged USCIS applied an “unnecessarily restrictive evidentiary threshold” but failed to specify errors of law or identify misapplied standards.
- Arguments attempted to revive objections to the Director’s 2023 denial and the July 2024 appeal, which were not properly before the AAO in this motion.
- Claims regarding published material and commercial success were previously addressed; petitioner failed to identify specific legal or policy errors in the November 2024 decision.
- General assertions of recognition within the industry were insufficient without objective, corroborated evidence directly tied to the regulatory criteria.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters of Intent: Not submitted with the latest motion.
- Business Plan: Not applicable.
- Advisory Letter: None newly provided; prior assertions were restated without new probative support.
- Other Supporting Documentation: Revenue records and media references previously submitted but not adequately tied to individual impact.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Motion to reopen dismissed; motion to reconsider dismissed.
Reasoning: Petitioner did not present new facts or evidence, nor demonstrate legal or policy error in the November 2024 decision. The record does not establish extraordinary ability, sustained acclaim, or standing among the top of the field.
