dismissed EB-1A Case: Animation And Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-A-H-C-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 10, 2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a post production designer and animator who works in advertising, media, television 
and film, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the arts. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This classification makes 
visas available to foreign nationals 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, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition. The Director determined that the 
Petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), 
which necessitates either 1) documentation of a one-time major achievement, or 2) fulfillment of at 
least three of the ten regulatory criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The matter is before us on appeal. In his appeal, the Petitioner submits no new evidence but argues 
that the Director erred in concluding that he did not meet the lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards criterion, the published material about the Petitioner criterion and the 
original contributions of major significance criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), (v). 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
The Petitioner may establish his eligibility by demonstrating extraordinary ability through sustained 
national or international acclaim and achievements that have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation. Specifically, section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph 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, 
Matter of A-A-H-C-
(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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate his sustained acclaim 
and the recognition of his achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is a major, 
internationally recognized award). If a petitioner does not submit this documentation, then he must 
provide sufficient qualifying evidence indicating that he meets at least three of the ten criteria listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USCJS, 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); Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that United States Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) examines "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"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Previous 0-1 Approval 
On appeal, the Petitioner notes he is in the United States in 0-1 status and indicates his current 
nonimmigrant visa and the requested immigrant visa are based on the Petitioner's "extraordinary 
ability as a post production producer/animator." While USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 
nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude 
USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition based on a different, if similarly phrased, standard. 
The regulatory standard and requirements for an immigrant and nonimmigrant alien of extraordinary 
ability in the arts are different. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) defines extraordinary 
ability in the arts (including the performing arts) as simply "distinction," which is defined as: 
Distinction means a high level of achievement in the field of arts evidenced by a 
degree of skill and recognition substantially above that ordinarily encountered to the 
extent that a person described as prominent is renowned, leading, or well-known in 
the field of arts. 
2 
Matter of A-A-H-C-
The regulation relating to the immigrant classification, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), however, defines 
extraordinary ability in any field as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." While the ten criteria set 
forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) appear in the nonimmigrant regulation, 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii), they refer only to aliens who seek extraordinary ability in the fields of science, 
education, business or athletics. Separate criteria for nonimmigrant aliens of extraordinary ability in 
the arts are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv). The distinctionbetween these 
fields and the arts, which appears in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214(o), does not appear in the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h). As such, the petitioner's approval for a nonimmigrant visa under 
the lesser standard of "distinction" is not evidence of his eligibility for the similarly titled immigrant 
visa. 
Moreover, many 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior nonimmigrant 
petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. 
United States Dep't of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 
F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). We are not required to approve applications or petitions where 
eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been 
erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of Church Scientology Int '1, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). 
We need not treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 
F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, our authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a court 
of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the nonimmigrant 
petitions, we would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service center as the law 
is clear that an agency is not bound to follow an earlier determination as to a visa applicant where 
that initial determination was based on a misapplication of the law. Glara Fashion, Inc. v. Holder, 
11 CIV. 889 PAE, 2012 WL 352309 *7 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2012); Royal Siam v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 
139,148 (1st Cir. 2007); Tapis Int'l v. INS, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172,177 (D. Mass. 2000)) (Dkt.lO); 
Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 44 F. Supp. 2d 800, 803 (E.D.La. 1999), affd, 248 F.3d 
1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 819 (2001). 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 1 
Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the Petitioner, as initial evidence, may present a one­
time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. In this case, the Petitioner has 
not claimed or shown that he is the recipient of a qualifying award at a level similar to that of the 
Nobel Prize. As such, the Petitioner must provide at least three of the ten types of documentation 
listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the basic eligibility requirements. 
1 We have reviewed all of the Petitioner's evidence and will address those criteria he indicate~ he meets or for which he 
has submitted relevant and probative documentation. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-A-H-C-
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met the criteria pertaining to performing in a leading or 
critical role under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) and commanding a high salary or other significantly 
high remuneration under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). The record does not support these findings and 
for the reasons set forth below, we are withdrawing the Director's determinations for these two 
criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner specifically challenges the . Director's findings relating to the lesser 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), 
the published material about the Petitioner criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), and the 
original contributions of major significance criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). As discussed 
below, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets these criteria. 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of l~sser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor . 
The basis of the Petitioner's claim to meet this criterion is awards that his company received rather 
than awards that he personally received . It is the Petitioner's burden to establish that the evidence 
meets every element of this criterion. Not only must the Petitioner demonstrate his receipt of prizes 
and awards, but he must also demonstrate that those prizes and awards are nationally or 
internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor, which, by definition, goes beyond 
the awarding entity. 
In his appellate brief, the Petitioner claims that his company received the the 
awards presented by the multiple awards 
granted by the various 
awards, and awards from the As evidence of many of the 
claimed awards, the Petitioner submitted screen prints of websites such as 
and However, the content of the screen prints is in a foreign 
language and the certifications associated with the accompanying translations do not attest that they 
are "full," "complete and accurate," in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Because the 
Petitioner did not submit properly certified translations of the documents, he did not demonstrate 
that the evidence supports his claims. 
Additionally, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient information on the events, the entities hosting 
the competitions, or other material to demonstrate that the prizes or awards are nationally or 
internationally recognized. Further, in many instances, the Petitioner did not submit evidence to 
demonstrate that the awards were granted due specifically to his work on the projects. In his initial 
filing, the Petitioner offered a list of accolades that he claimed met this criterion. The list included 
projects that did not win, but were on the "shortlist," "nominated" or were "official selection[ s )" of 
certain film festivals . Recognition short of the Petitioner's actual receipt of qualifying awards or 
prizes, however, is insufficient under the plain language of the criterion. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-A-H-C-
Other evidence submitted is also insufficient to show that the Petitioner meets this criterion. For 
example, the Petitioner provided confirmation of a 2013 which was presented 
to ' by the The Petitioner stated that he "worked as the 
Director of animation" for this project. However, the award does not contain the names of any 
individual recipients. Additionally, the Petitioner provided no documentary evidence demonstrating 
that he functioned as the director of animation for this project and his own claims do not constitute 
evidence. See Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 
I&N Dec. 1,3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). The 
Petitioner did not provide background information on either the or the 
In addition, the record includes a copy of a 2013 The 
award, itself, indicates that it honors "outstanding local, regional and cable television commercials 
and programs .... " Thus, on its face, it is not a nationally or internationally recognized award. The 
Petitioner also provided evidence of the nomination of a cartoon episode, ' 
for the for 20 12 by the A 
nomination, as noted, is not an award. 
In his initial filing, the Petitioner provided a screenshot from the 
website, which offered information on the film The Petitioner 
indicated that he worked as the film's director of animation and that the film won the 
2010. The record, however, lacks evidence substantiating the Petitjoner's claim regarding 
this award, or explaining the nature of the award. Moreover, the Petitioner has not presented 
materials about the festival or its awards that demonstrate their national or international recognition. 
Similarly, on appeal, the Petitioner indicated he won the 2012, but did not 
submit evidence of the award, or sufficiently verify the award's national or international recognition. 
The Petitioner provided evidence of several awards that were presented to a 
company he states he owns and for which he functioned as the "Director of Animation" for the 
audiovisual pieces recognized by each award. Articles of Incorporation for confirm 
that the Petitioner is a co-owner of the company. However, ownership of a company is, without 
more, insufficient to establish that the Petitioner was involved in the creation of the winning 
advertisements. None of the awards identify members of the team who were responsible for t~e 
audiovisuals that won the awards, and there is no other documentation in the record to demonstrate 
who was responsible for the works that received the awards. 
Further, the Petitioner submitted a document stating that the "aims to develop academic 
training to professionals working in advertising, through seminars, workshops and courses," and that 
awards are the "most prestigious awards in the advertising industry of Venezuela." The 
Petitioner, however, provided no evidence other than the entity's own statement to substantiate the 
recognition or prestige of the awards. Unsubstantiated statements are not sufficient for the 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sojjici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing M~atter ofTreasure Craft ofCalifornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1972)). 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-A-H-C-
The Petitioner provided copies of five awards for a video, which the Petitioner wrote, 
directed and produced while he was a university student. The awards represent the 
conducted by the 
The Petitioner has not offered any evidence, such as media coverage or 
acknowledgment from the field, showing that the award was nationally or internationally recognized 
as awards of excellence in his field. 
As evidence of awards, the Petitioner submitted a letter from 
project coordinator, awards and global competitions, In his letter, 
stated that the Petitioner "has been credited in the creation of the following award 
winning entries honored in the Competitions" and identified nine awards that were 
granted to television 
programs such as and The 
Petitioner also included a letter from executive creative director, 
who stated that while he was the senior art director at he worked with the Petitioner, and 
that jobs on which they worked together were recipients of the awards. However, 
neither nor explained what the Petitioner did for the various television 
programs or how his work was integral to the success of the various projects that won the awards. 
The Petitioner_has not provided copies of the awards and has not demonstrated that he was the actual 
recipient. 
Moreover, the Petitioner offered no evidence to demonstrate that awards are nationally 
or internationally recognized. The Petitioner presented a document stating that the 
awards "stand for marketing excellence in the media marketing space" and "are regarded as the most 
prestigious awards for creative endeavor in this field." He included the organization's website in the 
document. However, the Petitioner offered no documentation, outside of the awarding entity, 
verifying the prestige of the awards. As noted, unsubstantiated statements are not sufficient for the 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. For 
these reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied the plain language of this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in thefield for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation. · 
The Petitioner maintains that he meets this criterion because he initially submitted published articles 
that referenced him or his work. In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it 
must be about the petitioner and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have 
significant national or international distribution. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, 
nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant 
national distribution, unlike small local community papers. 2 Furthermore, the plain language of the 
2 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, an 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-A-H-C-
regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(iii) requires that "[ s ]uch evidence shall include the title, date, 
and author of the material, and any necessary translation." 
On appeal, the Petitioner identifies eight previously submitted articles that he characterizes as 
"major." With the articles, the Petitioner submitted translations which the translator did not certify 
as "full," "complete" or "accurate," in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Because the 
Petitioner did not submit properly certified translations of the documents, he has not demonstrated 
that the evidence supports his claims. Further, the Petitioner provided no information about the 
publishers or the websites on which the articles appeared. The Petitioner indicates that "[t]hese 
publications are major industry trade publications as evidenced in the RFE response." The Petitioner 
identified circulation levels for each of the publications but did not document the source of the 
figures, other than to include a website address for each publication. A website address is not 
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a publication qualifies as a professional or major trade 
publication or other major medium. It is the Petitioner's burden to demonstrate that the publications 
in which his works appear enjoy significant national or international distribution. Without such 
evidence, the Petitioner has not shown that the articles were published in qualifying publications or 
major media. 
In addition, most of the published materials that the Petitioner submitted in support of this criterion 
are not about him. While they referenced the Petitioner, they are about the industry in which the 
Petitioner works or films or television stations where he has worked. As a result, the Petitioner has 
not met the 
plain language of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The Petitioner's claim to meet this criterion rests upon four testimonial letters, the publicationof 
some of his works in textbooks and other publications, and presentations which he made at various 
symposia. To satisfy this criterion, a petitioner's contributions must be both original and of major 
significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). The term "original" and the phrase "major 
significance" are not superfluous and, thus, they have some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple 
Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3d Cir. 1995), quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 
(2d Cir. 2003). Regardless of the field, the phrase "contributions of major significance in the field" 
requires substantiated impacts beyond one's employer, clients or customers. See Visinscaia, 4 F. 
Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because 
she did not demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). 
referred to the Petitioner as a "visionary capable of producing influential artwork 
for any kind of media." stated that he worked with the Petitioner on a number of 
projects involving "show openings and logos," for a number of television programs such as 
article that appears in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, for instance, does not meet the plain 
language ofthe criterion. 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-A-H-C-
and maintained that the Petitioner 
"stands out as a world leader in the field of designs and post production .... " However, although 
identified specific projects upon which he worked with the Petitioner, he did not 
describe the nature of the Petitioner's contribution. Further, did not explain how the 
Petitioner's work on these projects impacted the field ofdesign and post production. 
a director, screenwriter, and producer, worked with the Petitioner on at least two 
projects and stated that he was impressed with the Petitioner's "talent and artistic abilities." 
According to he recommended the Petitioner "to do the visuals for 
an opera that was directed by .... " While working on this project, the 
Petitioner "made 5 animated sequences" which the called "sophisticated and elaborate." 
characterizes the Petitioner as "an inspiration to the Venezuelan industry of films, 
advertising and entertainment . . ... " Although noted favorable comments which an 
unidentified author made in the the Petitioner provided no documentary evidence to 
substantiate the claimed positive review. Further, a favorable. review does not equate to an original 
contribution. Moreover, the Petitioner provided no evidence showing that the Petitioner's five 
animated sequences represented original artistic contributions which made a measurable impact 
upon his field, as a whole. 
'the executive director of 
remarked that the Petitioner is a valuable member of the 
organization evidenced by his "outstanding works," "personal values," and a "bright mind." 
characterized the Petitioner as an incredibly "talented and successful designer" who has 
provided "invaluable advice to noted that the Petitioner was 
selected "to do an animated short film named by the 
However, 
did not provide the basis for the Petitioner's selection. Neither did she claim, nor has the Petitioner 
shown, that being a member of the or being 
selected by the to create an animated film constitutes an original 
contribution. Further, although maintained that the Petitioner has been a valuable asset 
to her organization, she did not explain any impact which the Petitioner has made upon the field of 
post-production or animation. 
the director of stated that a major factor in his company's 
success is the work they did for the "Hispanic market in the United States." indicated 
that the Petitioner's benefit to his company is his understanding of the needs of the "Hispanic and 
general market." also noted the Petitioner's ability to stay abreast of technology which is 
used in the industry, namely "stereoscopy for 3D" which is a "technique for creating or enhancing 
the illusion of depth in an image by means of stereopsis for binocular vision." noted that 
the Petitioner adds to this work "with a new technology called irnrnersive 360° VR videos." While 
understanding the needs of a business' market is certainly an advantage for the company's 
3 The name of the studio is styled in this fashion on the compa~y's letterhead. 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-A-H-C-
employees, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that this is somehow original. Further, while 
spoke of the Petitioner's work with "stereoscopy for 3D" and "immersive 360° VR videos," 
he did not claim that the Petitioner is responsible for creating these technological advances or that 
his work with these technologies has been emulated by others in his field or has otherwise impacted 
the field on a broad scale. · 
The opinions of the Petitioner's references are not without weight and have been considered above. 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. 
See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is. 
ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. Id The submission of reference letters supporting the petition is not presumptive 
evidence of eligibility; USC IS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support 
the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796; see also Matter ofV-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) 
(noting 
that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). Thus, the content 
of the references' statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important 
considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of 
an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence that one would 
expect of a post-production designer/animator who has made original contributions of major 
significance in the field. Cf Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d 131-32 (concluding that USCIS' decision to 
give little weight to uncorroborated assertions from professionals in the field was not arbitrary and 
capricious). 
The Petitioner maintains that his works have been "selected for and published in text books and 
other prestigious publications." The Petitioner submitted pictures that he claims represent logos and 
animated designs which were published in various design books. However, none of the works are 
signed or otherwise attributed to the Petitioner. Further, the Petitioner provided no information 
about the publications 
in which the designs appear and no evidence to show why his designs were 
selected for publication. The record contains no evidence of the circulation of the volumes of 
illustrations. Moreover, while the Petitioner refers to the publications as "prestigious," he provided 
no evidence to substantiate this statement, and his statement alone is insufficient to show that he 
meets this criterion. 
The Petitioner also claims that his invitations to speak and lecture are indicative of his original 
contributions to the field. The Petitioner's speaking engagements, without evidence of originality 
and impact in the field at the level of "major significance," do not meet this criterion. The Petitioner 
provided evidence of three conferences: "the "the 
· and For the first 
two, the Petitioner's company, was identified as a guest speaker for workshops 
conducted at the conferences. For the third event, the Petitioner was identified as participating in a 
forum for advertising media. The Petitioner identified no original contribution which formed the 
basis of his participation in the conferences and provided no documentary evidence of any influence 
which his presentations made in his industry. 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-A-H-C-
The Petitioner also provided a letter from CEO who indicated that he 
invited the Petitioner to speak at a conference, called AUDIO+ VISUAL New Trends. According to 
the Petitioner spoke about "animation and stereoscopic 3D," being "the first to 
develop the stereoscopic technique" with excellent results for advertising. Although 
claims that the Petitioner was the first to develop the "stereoscopic technique" with respect to its 
implementation in advertising, the record contains no evidence substantiating such claims, or 
explaining the "stereoscopic technique" or how it has been implemented. The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that he is responsible for the development of this technique or its implementation in 
the field of advertising. Further, the Petitioner has not shown that the presentation resulted in others 
implementing his "stereoscopic technique." Through these events, the Petitioner has disseminated 
his work and ideas, but without evidence of the field's reception of the presentations, the Petitioner 
has not shown they constitute original contributions of major significance in the field. 
In his appellate brief, the Petitioner claimed to have been involved in eight other speaking 
engagements but provided no evidence to describe these events or otherwise show that he actually 
participated in them. Without documentary evidence, the Petitioner has not substantiated his claims. 
Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. For these reasons, the Petitioner has not met the plain language of this 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or estab(ishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The Petitioner stated that he meets this criterion because he performed "lead work" for distinguished 
organizations. The Director found that the Petitioner met the plain language of this criterion. 
However, the evidence in the record does not support this finding and we withdraw the Director's 
determination. A leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall hierarchy of an 
organization and the role's corresponding duties. Similarly, a critical role is evidenced by its overall 
impact on the organization or establishment. Additionally, the organizations or establishments 
claimed under this criterion must be marked by eminence, distinction, excellence, or a similar 
reputation. 
In this case, the Petitioner submitted 13 letters from individuals who either worked with the 
Petitioner or are familiar with his work in the field. We have reviewed all of the letters but will 
discuss a representative sample. owned the when he hired the 
Petitioner in 1997 "as a junior designer." noted that the Petitioner worked on several 
"publicity campaigns for the best brands of the country," such as and and 
that "without [the Petitioner's] input, visionary artistic talent and team leadership, 
would not have existed and wouldn't have had the success it had." Filmmaker, 
stated that he has known the Petitioner "for more than fifteen years in which we've worked on many 
successful projects." According to the Petitioner "supervised all the post-production 
work" on master's thesis project. Since then, they have collaborated on one short film 
and several music videos. an actor and producer, explained that he worked with 
the Petitioner on two movie projects: and and that the 
10 
(b)(6)
,~ 
Matter of A-A-H-C-
Petitioner worked on the latter as co-producer. a filmmaker and executive producer, 
maintained that he has worked with the Petitioner since they were students at the University. 
indicated that he established his own company, and that the Petitioner worked for him 
on a commercial for 
This criterion requires the Petitioner to have performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments with a distinguished reputation. Therefore, the Petitioner's work with individuals 
such as and would not meet the plain language of this regulatory 
criterion. attributes a critical role to the Petitioner while he worked for 
However, the Petitioner provided no documentary evidence to demonstrate that 
has a distinguished reputation. While indicated that the Petitioner worked 
with his company on a commercial, he did not identify the duties which the Petitioner 
performed for his organization. Further, the Petitioner provided no evidence to demonstrate the 
distinguished reputation of We have already discussed the Petitioner's co-founding of 
and entities for which he played a leading role. However, the 
Petitioner has provided no evidence demonstrating that either entity enjoys a distinguished 
reputation. 
The Petitioner provided letters which attest to the Petitioner's involvement with companies such as 
and However, the letters do not document the 
specific duties which the Petitioner performed for the named organizations and the Petitioner 
provided no evidence to indicate that the named entities are organizations or establishments having a 
distinguished reputation. 
The record contains two letters which indicate that the Petitioner worked for organizations 
distinguished reputations. However, in these instances, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he 
functioned in either a lead or critical role for such organizations. stated that he 
worked at as the senior art director, and while there, he and the Petitioner had "done many 
jobs that have won recognition .... " However, provided no description of the 
Petitioner's role or the duties which the Petitioner performed, or further described how the 
Petitioner's involvement in the various jobs could be considered leading or critical to 
ad sales marketing director for Latin America and Brazil at 
states that the Petitioner "has been a key motion graphic vendor and has worked actively 
in several creative projects for the in Latin America." While 
notes that the Petitioner was a "powerful contributor" to "numerous projects," he does not 
describe the Petitioner as a lead or as critical to the operations of 
in Latin America. He merely speaks to the Petitioner's involvement in "various projects." Evidence 
under this criterion must provide specifics relating to how the Petitioner's role was critical to the 
organization as a whole. Noroozi v. Napolitano, 905 F.Supp.2d 535, 545 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). 
The remainder of the letters includes general reference to the Petitioner's talent and his work in the 
field of graphics and animation. However, none of the authors articulate how the Petitioner 's role 
for each of the named organizations was leading or critical to the various establishments as a whole. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not met the plain language of this criterion. 
II 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-A-H-C-
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field 
The Petitioner claimed to have met this criterion because he signed a contract with 
and because his company earned a profit in 2013. The Director found that the Petitioner 
met the plain language of this criterion. However, the evidence in the record does not support this 
finding and we withdraw the Director's determination for this criterion. 
The Petitioner provided a copy of a contract with in which the Petitioner was 
offered the position of Creative Director at an annual salary of $220,000. The contract was drafted 
one month prior to the filing of the I-140 petition. While the salary is on the higher end of Bureau of 
Labor Statistics' wage scale for art directors" the Petitioner did not provide documentary evidence, 
such as bank documents or earnings statements, demonstrating that actually paid him this 
sum or that he has ever earned a salary similar to that noted in the contract. 
The Petitioner makes reference to the ann~al income for during 2013 and provided the 
income tax return for the company for that year. However, the income reflected on the tax return is 
for the company, not for an individual. In addition, the tax return submitted is in Spanish and the 
Petitioner provided no translation. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) specifically requires that 
any foreign language document which the Petitioner submits to USCIS must include a full and 
certified English language translation. Because the Petitioner did not provide a translation for the 
tax return, he has not shown that the document supports his claims. Further, although the tax return 
reflects income for 2013, the Petitioner has provided no comparative data to 
demonstrate that this income is high relative to the income of other corporations in the industry. 
Additionally, the Petitioner has provided no separate wage documentation to establish the amount of 
his own salary or remuneration. For these reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he 
received a high salary or other significantly high remuneration associated with his work for 
and has not met the plain language of this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documents submitted in support of extraordinary ability must show that the individual has 
achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of his or her field of endeavor. Had the Petitioner provided evidence satisfying at least 
three evidentiary categories, the next step would be a final merits determination that considers all of 
the filings in the context of whether or not the Petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise 
indicating that the individual is one of that smaH percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor," and (2) that the individual "has sustained national or international acclaim and 
that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), 
(3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20 (discussing a two-part review where the evidence is 
first counted and then, if satisfying the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a 
final merits determination). Although we need not provide the type of final merits determination 
referenced in Kazarian, a review of the record in the aggregate supports a finding that the Petitioner 
has not established the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
12 
\ 
Matter of A-A-H-C-
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. It is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N 
Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-A-H-C-, ID# 17404 (AAO Aug. 10, 2016) 
13