dismissed EB-1A Case: Camera Operation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 29, 2024 In Re: 29547063 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a camera operator specializing in combat zone coverage, seeks classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability in the arts. 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 the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner has a level of expertise indicating that he is one of the small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of his field of endeavor. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability classification if they have extraordinary ability 
in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and their achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation; they seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. 
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 petitioner can demonstrate a one­
time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not 
submit this evidence, then they 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 they are 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner seeks to work as a camera operator in the United States. The Director concluded that 
the Petitioner submitted sufficient documentation to meet four of the ten initial evidentiary criteria 1 
and proceeded to a final merits analysis, determining that the overall record did not establish the 
Petitioner's sustained record of national acclaim or that he is one of the small percentage that has risen 
to the very top of his field of endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief, incorporation documents, and a letter regarding a job offer, 
and documentation he previously submitted with the underlying petition. Upon review, the Petitioner 
has not overcome the Director's denial, for the reasons below. 
A. Initial Evidentiary Criteria 
As a preliminary matter, we will withdraw the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner submitted 
evidence that meets 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), receipt oflesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. The Petitioner claims to meet this criterion 
based on various military awards from his time as a combat camera operator and a special prize he 
won at the 20071 IFilm Festival in Georgia. 
First, the record indicates that nearly all of the Petitioner's military awards, such as thel I 
medal from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and thel Ifrom the 
Georgian Ministry of Defense, were awarded to military and other personnel for participation in 
various operations and campaigns. There is no indication that these are awards in the Petitioner's field 
of combat camera operation, or that they recognize excellence in that field. As such, they do not 
qualify the Petitioner for this criterion. 
The Petitioner's Certificate of Commendation from the U.S. Marine Corps states that it was awarded 
to him for "outstanding achievements in the performance of his duties as a combat cameraman." 
1 The Petitioner does not claim, and the evidence does not indicate, that he meets the initial evidentiary requirement through 
a major, internationally recognized award ("one-time achievement"). 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
2 
However, while this award was granted for excellence in the Petitioner's field, there is no indication 
in the record that it is nationally or internationally recognized. The Petitioner provided documentation 
regarding the history and prestige of the Marine Corps, but did not provide evidence showing that their 
Certificates of Commendation are recognized beyond the rewarding entity. This award therefore also 
does not qualify the Petitioner for this criterion. 
Thel Iaward was granted to the Petitioner for a documentary about combat camera 
operators which he co-directed. The record includes a copy of the award as well as promotional 
documents regarding the~------- but these documents do not indicate what criteria were 
used to grant this award, the number of other awardees, or whether this award is nationally or 
internationally recognized beyond the rewarding entity. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual 
F.2(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. Instead, the documentation rovided onl indicates 
that this was a "special diploma" granted by "the Georgia social com an The 
record therefore does not establish that the special award from the~------~is awarded for 
excellence in the Petitioner's field or that it is nationally or internationally recognized, and so this 
award does not qualify under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
For the above reasons, we will withdraw the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner received lesser 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence in his field of endeavor. However, the 
Petitioner's documentation still meets the required three initial evidentiary criteria: 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii), published material about the Petitioner in major media; (vii), display of the 
Petitioner's work in artistic exhibitions; and (viii), performing a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments with distinguished reputations. We will therefore proceed to a final 
merits determination under Kazarian, 596 F.3d 1115, 19-20. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In the decision notice, the Director conducted a final merits analysis of the totality of the record under 
Kazarian, and concluded that the Petitioner did not have a record of sustained national or international 
acclaim or show that he is one of a small percentage that has risen to the very top of his field, and so 
does not qualify for the extraordinary ability classification. Id. Upon review, the Petitioner has not 
overcome this denial ground. 
The Petitioner claims that by fulfilling at least three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), 
he has established that he has extraordinary ability. However, evaluating whether a petition meets the 
initial evidentiary requirements of a one-time achievement or at least three of the ten criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) is only the first step of the two-step Kazarian analysis, not the totality of 
it. Kazarian, 596 F.3d 1115, 19-20. If a petitioner meets these initial requirements, we continue to 
the second step, which is reviewing the overall record to determine whether the petitioner meets the 
statutory and regulatory definition of extraordinary ability. Id. Here, while the Petitioner has met 
three criteria, he has done so with evidence that does not establish that he has a sustained record of 
national or international acclaim in his field. 
The overall record indicates that the Petitioner is a skilled combat camera operator who has 
documented several international conflicts under highly dangerous circumstances. However, most of 
the evidence pertaining to his acclaim dates to the period from 2007 to 2009, when he co-directed and 
3 
released documentaries about combat camera operators working to record the Russo-Georgian war. 
The Petitioner met the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii), display at artistic exhibitions, solely 
because one of his documentaries was shown at a film festival in 2007. Similarly, he met the published 
material ground 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) on the basis of three television interviews, two from 2009 
and one from 2023. Two of these three interviews, including the one from 2023, were conducted and 
aired by the television channels where the Petitioner was employed at the time, which diminishes their 
probative weight as evidence of his national acclaim. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, 
at F.2(8)(3) ("It is generally expected that one whose accomplishments have garnered sustained 
national or international acclaim would have received recognition for their accomplishments well 
beyond the circle of their personal and professional acquaintances."). As noted above, the Petitioner's 
awards were almost all granted for participation in various military campaigns, not for excellence in 
his field. The Petitioner has not established that showing a film in one festival and being interviewed 
three times in 14 years are achievements which reflect a "career of acclaimed work in the field," as 
contemplated by Congress for the extraordinary ability classification. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 
(Sep. 19, 1990). 
We acknowledge the many expert support letters submitted by the Petitioner's coworkers in Georgian 
television, which speak highly of his abilities and his work. However, such letters should be 
corroborated by documentary evidence in the record. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, 
at F.2(8)(3). Here, the evidence of the Petitioner's acclaim beyond 2009 is sparse, and does not 
constitute the kind of "extensive documentation" contemplated by section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
Nor does this evidence establish that the Petitioner has sustained a national or international level of 
acclaim over time. Id. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates the prestige of his military awards and notes that only a small 
percentage of people serve in the military, contending that this means he is one of that small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of his field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(2). However, the foll text 
of the regulation defines extraordinary ability as "a level ofexpertise indicating that the individual is 
one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." Id. ( emphasis 
added). The relevant question is not whether the Petitioner's occupation is uncommon within the 
general population, but whether his level of expertise is uncommon within his occupation, as 
demonstrated by extensive documentation of his achievements in the field. Id.; section 203(b)(l)(A) 
of the Act. The Petitioner has not provided such documentation here. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
has long held that even athletes at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter ofPrice, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954-5 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). The totality of 
the evidence provided does not establish that the Petitioner has sustained a national or international 
level of acclaim over time or that he is one of that small percentage at the very top of his field of 
endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2)-(3). He is therefore ineligible for the extraordinary ability 
classification, and the petition will remain denied. 
C. Continuing to Work in Area of Expertise 
Beyond the decision of the Director, we note that in order to qualify for the extraordinary ability 
criterion, the Petitioner must establish that he is coming to the United States in order to continue to 
4 
work in his claimed area of expertise, which is camera operation in conflict zones. In his initial 
personal statement, the Petitioner stated: "Upon the approval of my petition, I intend to continue 
working in New York, USA" as a camera operator. 2 However, the record indicates that the Petitioner 
has been employed by the Georgian television station I I since 2020 as a "Cameraman 
Coordinator and Lecturer." There is no indication that the Petitioner's work withl Ihas 
involved combat camera operation. Instead, the recommendation letters, military awards, and other 
documents in the record indicate he last worked as a camera operator in a conflict zone in 2017, six 
years prior to the petition's filing. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides a certificate of incorporation for~-------~' a company 
he founded inD 2023, as well as a July 2023 letter from M-G- stating that he has invited the 
Petitioner to work as a director of photography for his company in New York. This letter states that 
"our company has plan[ s] to produce [a] documentary web-series about successful Georgians working 
in the USA" and that they would also like the Petitioner "as an experienced cameraman to deliver 
masterclasses to the Georgian juveniles who live in the USA and who want[] to become a cameraman." 
In light of the fact that the Petitioner has not worked as a combat camera operator in several years, this 
letter and the Petitioner's statement do not suffice to establish that the Petitioner is coming to the 
United States to continue working in his area of exceptional ability as a combat camera operator. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established his eligibility for the extraordinary ability classification. 
Furthermore, beyond the decision of the Director, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established 
that he is coming to the United States to continue working in his area of exceptional ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 The Petitioner is currently in the United States after being admitted under the nonimmigrant classification for 
representatives of information media. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(i). 
5