dismissed EB-1A Case: Cinematography

U.S. Department of EIomeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
identifying data deleted to 
 OBC~ ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
 Washington, DC 20529-2090 
invasion of personal privacj 
 U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
. .- - 
LIN 07 203 53007 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned 
to the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to 
have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.5 for the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided 
your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
,ti DUd)~lok 
/' John F. Grissom 
v~ctin~ Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center. The petition is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. The director determined the petitioner had not 
established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had 
failed to demonstrate receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that she meets at 
least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner meets the statutory requirements and 
at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3). 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. - Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified 
immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) 
through (C): 
(A) 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, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area 
of extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the legacy Immigration and 
Naturalization Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very 
high standard for individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 
Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary 
ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The specific 
requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or 
international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, 
Page 3 
however, that the petitioner must show that she has sustained national or international acclaim at 
the very top level. 
This petition, filed on June 14, 2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as cinematographer. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that 
an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of 
such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for an 
alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. A 
petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by submitting 
evidence that simply relates to at least three of the criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). In 
determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be 
evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory 
definition of "extraordinary ability" 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." 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(2). 
The petitioner has submitted evidence that, she claims, meets the following criteria under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted documentation indicating that she received "Honorable Mention" for 
Outstanding Cinematography presented by the American Society of Cinematographers (ASC) at 
the 21St ASC John A. Alonzo Heritage Award. According to documentation submitted by the 
petitioner, the ASC is "an educational, cultural and professional organization" that extends 
invitations to membership "only to directors of photography with distinguished credits in the 
industry." The announcement for the 21St annual awards indicated that the ASC Heritage Award 
for Outstanding Cinematography was established "in order to seek out and recognize talented 
new cinematographers." The documentation also indicated that: 
To accomplish this goal, the Heritage Award Committee contacted colleges and 
universities with film programs throughout the U.S. and requested submissions of 
their students' best work. These films were reviewed by a panel of ASC members 
and evaluated by the same high standards of quality and creativity used to 
determine the other ASC Awards. This year's nominated work made for some 
close judging, but the Society is pleased to recognized the talent and promise of 
two honorees and respectfully acknowledge two honorable mentions. 
1 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
In an April 3, 2007 letter from the American Film Institute (AFI), - 
indicated that the petitioner's honorable mention from the ASC was for her master's thesis film 
" The petitioner submitted no documentation to establish that "honorable 
mention" is a prize or award or that any prize or award given by the ASC is nationally or 
internationally recognized as a prize or award for excellence in the petitioner's field. 
In response to the director's request for evidence (RFE dated Januar 27, 2008, the petitioner 
submitted a copy of an April 2, 2008 letter from )of the ASC. Ms. 
stated that the ASC inaugurated the Heritage Award in 1998 as a "competition for 
film school seniors and recent graduates in the United States." She further stated that the "award 
- 
has grown over the years to be highly respected in both academic and professional film 
communities. It is highly sought after." The petitioner submitted no documentation such as 
- ~ 
media coverage or similar documentation to corroborate statements regarding 
the "respect" garnered by the ASC7s heritage awards beyond ASC itself. 
The petitioner submitted a press release from the ASC announcing the dedication of its 2008 
Heritage Award competition to , a call for entries and the requirements for entry. 
The press release briefly described the history of the organization. However, nothing in the press 
release or any information submitted by the petitioner establishes that awards by ASC, 
particularly student competition awards, are internationally or internationally recognized as 
awards or prizes of excellence in the field. 
Furthermore, with regard to awards won by the petitioner in competitions that were limited by 
her collegiate status, such awards do not indicate that she "is one of that small percentage who 
have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). There is no 
indication that the petitioner faced significant competition from throughout her field, rather than 
the competition being limited to individuals who were "seniors and recent graduates." USCIS 
has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the 
"extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Commr. 1994); 56 
Fed. Reg. at 60899.~ Likewise, it does not follow that a competitor like the petitioner who has had 
success in a competition restricted to those with little or no prior experience in the field, should 
2 
 While we acknowledge that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Matter of 
Racine, 1995 WL 1533 19 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
[Tlhe plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a 
comparison of Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of play; but rather, 
Racine's ability as a professional hockey player within the NHL. This interpretation is consistent 
with at least one other court in this district, Grimson v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. Ill. September 
9, 1993), and the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. 6 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the 
preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
Although the present case arose within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and circuit, the 
court's reasoning indicates that USCIS' interpretation is reasonable. 
necessarily qualify for an extraordinary ability employment-based immigrant visa. 
 To find 
otherwise would contravene the regulatory requirement at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(2) that this visa 
category be reserved for "that small percentage of individuals that have risen to the very top of their 
field of endeavor." 
The petitioner submits no new documentation or argument regarding this award on appeal. None 
of the documentation submitted indicates that an "honorable mention" at the ASC Heritage 
Awards is an award or that the ASC Heritage Award is a nationally or internationally recognized 
as an award of excellence. 
The petitioner also submitted documentation indicating that she won the Best Student Film for 
her film "Caroline Crossing" at the 2007 Dam Short Film Festival and a 2006 Shenill C. Convin 
Scholarship at the AFI. In denying the petition, the director noted that competition for these 
awards is limited to students and that academic study is not a field of endeavor. Academic study 
is training for a future field of endeavor. As discussed above, because competition for these 
awards is limited to other students and recent graduates it does not appear that experienced 
cinematographers are competitors. Thus, these awards cannot establish that the petitioner is one 
of the very few at the top of her field. 
The petitioner submitted documentation which she stated indicated that the film "Anatomy of 
Pain 2 - The Dead are Deadly" won the Gold Medal of Belgrade for Best Documentary in 2001 
and the film "Anatomy of Pain" won the Grand Prix at the 47th Documentary and Short Film 
Festival in 2000. The petitioner stated that she served as director of photography on both of these 
films, which were directed by. The petitioner also stated that the film, "Gallows for 
Two," won the Gold Medal of Belgrade for Best Student Film at the 44'" Documentary and Short 
Film Festival in 1997, and that it was directed by - while she served as director of 
photography. An article, which purportedly appeared in a March 3 1, 1997 publication Politika 
indicates the film won for "Best Debut." The petitioner did not submit the original of the Politika 
article and the translation submitted does not comply with the regulation in that the translator is 
not identified, and the translator did not certify that the translation was complete and accurate 
and that he or she is competent to translate from Serbian into English. The document therefore 
does not comply with the provisions of 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(3) and will not be accorded any 
weight in this proceeding. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted an April 3, 2008 letter from - 
Secretary of "FEST Head Office," in which he stated that, established in 1960, "[tlhe 
International Festival of Documentar film is the oldest Yugoslav Documentary film festival in 
continuous operation." Additionally, stated: 
The awards are given for the overall artistic achievement, as well as individual 
achievement in a given field. The award recipients are expected to satisfy 
universal criteria that is commonly accepted at all other International Film 
Festivals. 
Page 6 
The Grand Prix prize is given to the best film which satisfies all three above 
requirements, and acknowledges professionalism and overall quality of all film 
workers from directing to cinematography, screenwriting, music, costumes etc. 
Our additional awards are The Golden Plaque of Belgrade given to the best 
foreign film and a separate award for the best student film. Gold medals are 
awarded to the best short feature film and a full length documentary. We also 
award four diplomas for individual achievement. 
[The petitioner] is one of the filmmakers (field of cinematography) awarded the 
1997 Best student film Gold Medal of Belgrade's 44th Documentary and Short 
film Festival. This award was won for the most promising young film artist's 
achievements that are having their first public showing after graduating. The 
selection in this group consisted of few hundred competing entries out of which 
around 20 were chosen to enter final award stage with one final winner. 
2000 Grand Prix 47th Documentary and Short Film Festival is an award from the 
few hundred submitted entries films which our selection narrows down to up to 
60 showings - while only one can satisfy the highest range of professionalism and 
film expression equally well, within all aspects of film-making (camera, directing, 
editing, etc.). [The petitioner] was the Director of photography of a winning film 
that year, and like a cinematographer she is holding award on same level like any 
other film maker in that particular movie. 
Also same artist [the petitioner] was the one who held with her colleagues the 
2001 Best Documentary - The Golden Medal of Belgrade at the 4gth 
Documentary and Short Film Festival. 
The petitioner submitted no documentary evidence to indicate that awards granted by the 
International Festival of Documentary Film are nationally or internationally recognized as 
awards of excellence in her field of endeavor. The fact that the festival is "the oldest Yugoslav 
Documentary film festival" is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish that awards granted by 
the festival are recognized beyond the festival itself. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of a 2000 "Special Commendation" issued to in 
recognition of his "honorable mention" at the Prix Circom Regional for his film "Anatomy of 
Pain." The petitioner is not mentioned on the award. Additionally, the petitioner submitted no 
documentation that this award is nationally or internationally recognized as an award of 
excellence in her field of endeavor. 
The record reveals that the petitioner has received recognition and some awards for her work. 
However, the evidence submitted fails to establish that the awards or prizes that she received are 
nationally or internationally recognized as awards of excellence in her field. Accordingly, she 
has failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classzfication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
To demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the petitioner must show 
that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, 
minimum education or work experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, 
recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of dues do not satisfy this 
criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. The overall prestige 
of a given association is not determinative. The issue is membership requirements rather than the 
association's overall reputation. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of membership card in the Academy of Television Arts & 
Sciences, and a certificate fiom the Serbian Association of Film & TV Artists, certifying that the 
petitioner had been a member of the association since January 1, 2007. The petitioner also 
submitted a March 16, 2007 letter from the Independent Journalists' Association of Serbia 
(IJAS), certifying that she was a journalist and a member of the association. The petitioner 
submitted no documentation regarding the membership requirements of the organizations or to 
otherwise establish that these organizations require outstanding achievements of their members. 
We note that the petitioner's membership card in the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences 
indicates "Academic" membership and therefore appears to be based on her status as a student. 
The card further indicates that the petitioner's membership in the Academy expired two months 
prior to the date she filed her petition. According to the website for the organization listed on the 
petitioner's membership card, academic membership is for those who are students or recent 
graduates and neither active nor associate membership requires outstanding achievement as a 
condition for membership. Only life membership is based on "outstanding service to the 
corporation or outstanding accomplishment in the telecommunications industry." 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted an unsigned letter dated March 28, 2008 from 
the Serbian Association of Film & TV Artists, indicating that, to become a member, the 
association requires the individual to complete three documentary films "of above average 
quality" or that at least two out of three films have won major awards. The petitioner submitted 
no documentation to corroborate the statement in the letter. Further, while the letter indicates that 
a major award for two films can qualify the individual for membership, it also permits 
membership based on completion of three documentary films of "above average" quality. 
Producing films of above quality is not necessarily indicative of outstanding achievement. 
The petitioner also submitted a March 28,2008 letter fiom the IJAS signed by -, 
the general secretary. stated that membership in the organization requires that the 
member has a minimum of two years of news coverage and "[i]ntemational recognition (awards 
won within European market)." The petitioner did not submit documentation to verify Mr. 
statement or to otherwise establish the membership requirements of IJAS. 
Page 8 
The petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classzjication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
In order to meet this criterion, published materials must be primarily about the petitioner and be 
printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify as major 
media, the publication should have significant national distribution and be published in a 
predominant language. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a 
particular locality but would qualify as major media because of a significant national 
distribution. 
The petitioner submitted a summary and screen shots of what she stated was a newscast on TV 
B92 reporting on her receipt of the ASC Award for her film. She submitted 
similar documentation from Serbian National TV RTS 1 purportedly of a documentary series 
Serbians in the World. Television programs which are visual works are not published material as 
contemplated by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) which references written work and 
specifically requires evidence of an author. In addition, several of the screen shots also contain 
English captions. The translations of the summaries and screen captions accompanying these 
documents do not comply with the provisions of 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3) in that the translator is 
not identified, did not certify that the translation was complete and accurate, or that he or she is 
competent to translate from Serbian into English. The petitioner also submitted a copy of a page 
from the Voice of America (VOA) website dated February 21,2007, reporting that the petitioner 
had won honorable mention at the ASC awards. Whlle Internet sites are technically accessible 
nationally and even internationally, it cannot be credibly asserted that every Internet site has the 
same degree of national or international influence. The record lacks evidence about traffic garnered 
by the VOA website such that it can be classified as major media. In response to the RFE, the 
petitioner submits another page fiom the website of VOA indicating that VOA broadcasts to a 
worldwide audience of more than 115 million people. However, the petitioner submitted no 
documentation about Internet visits to the VOA website. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of a February 23, 2007 article from the newspaper Vesti, reporting 
on her receipt of the award from ASC. The petitioner submitted no documentation to indicate that 
Vesti is a professional or major trade publication or is considered other major media. Additionally, 
the translation did not identify an author of the article as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The petitioner also submitted copies of several articles that she stated appeared in the following 
newspapers on February 23,2007: 24 sata, Glas, Press, and Politiku. The petitioner did not submit 
certified translations of these documents. See 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(3). Accordingly, the evidence is 
not probative and will not be accorded any weight in this proceeding. The petitioner also 
submitted copies of pages from several websites, including the TV B92, Serbian TV RTS, PINK, 
cinematographer.com, digitalcontentproducer.com and studentfilmakers.com. The petitioner 
provided copies of pages from the website of the AFI, including a list of 2006-07 Fellow and 
Alumni Awards and Honors indicating the petitioner was awarded Honorable Mention at the ASC 
Awards and a discussion of her film Caroline Crossing which received the Honorable Mention. The 
list of honors is not an article about the petitioner or her work. Several documents were from the 
webpage of Crucible of War, a film on which the petitioner worked. 
We note first that the pages from the first three websites are not accompanied by English 
translations as required by the regulation. Id. Second, many media organizations, regardless of 
size and distribution, post at least some of their stories on the Internet. To ignore this reality 
would be to render the "major media" requirement meaningless. As previously discussed, we are 
not persuaded that international accessibility by itself is a realistic indicator of whether a given 
publication is "major media." The mere act of posting an article online does not transform what is 
otherwise local media into major media. The record lacks evidence that these sites constitute major 
media. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted a report from the Pew Research Center that 
concludes approximately one-third of Americans "regularly get news online." The petitioner agues 
that, therefore, Internet websites "should be considered commensurate with major media." 
However, just as not every newspaper is considered major media, not every Internet website can be 
considered major media. Each website attracts a different amount of traffic and without 
documentation of the visits to a particular website, it cannot be declared major media simply 
because it is an Internet site. 
The petitioner submitted copies of articles from Dox, a documentary film magazine; Washington 
Paper; and Washington Jewish Week about the film Crucible of War, on which the petitioner 
indicated that she served as cinematographer. These articles generally discuss the director and 
producers of the film but do not mention the petitioner. Further, the petitioner submitted no 
documentation to establish that these publications are professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. The petitioner also submitted an April 14, 2001 article from the director of 
Anatomy of Pain 2 and copies of other articles about this film and another film, Who Killed Ante 
Markovic, that are accompanied by only partial translations. Partial translations do not comply with 
the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 4 103.2(b)(3). 
The petitioner also submitted information about herself taken from the Internet Movie Data Base 
(IMDB) and a search of her name using Google and Yahoo. An Internet search of an alien's name 
does not amount to published material about the alien as it does not indicate the date that it was 
published and does not include the information required by the regulation including the title of the 
piece, the date, the author's name, or information about the publication so as to qualify it as a 
professional or major trade publication or other form of major media. 
The petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an alliedfield of speczfication for which classzfication is 
sought. 
The petitioner submitted a letter fi-om director of the Belgrade Women's Studies 
and Gender Research Center, in which she stated: 
As a well recognized and awarded woman cinematographer, [the petitioner] was 
welcome to partake, teach, and grade works on the topic of "women in the 
media". Her lectures came from her first hand experience working in the media 
(TV, film). She was, and is, considered an accomplished professional who will 
always be a welcome lecturer with us. 
The petitioner submitted no specific documentation regarding actual dates or events to establish 
that she actually graded or reviewed any work by others. Furthermore, assuming that the record 
held such evidence, the mere fact that she reviewed the works of others who attended her 
lectures is not evidence reflecting sustained acclaim under this criterion. Duties or activities 
which nominally fall under a given regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) do not 
demonstrate national or international acclaim if they are inherent or routine in the occupation 
itself. The regulation provides that "a petition for an alien of extraordinary ability must be 
accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that 
his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence of the 
petitioner's participation as a judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The 
weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv), therefore, 
depends on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. A 
lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of 
"extraordinary ability" 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." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). For 
example, evaluating the work of accomplished professors as a member on a national panel of 
experts is of far greater probative value than evaluating the work of graduate or undergraduate 
students. 
The petitioner also submitted an undated article from the magazine Republika reporting on a three- 
day seminar "Women and the Media" and noting that the petitioner was one of the media 
representatives covering the seminar. On appeal, counsel asserts that the translation was inaccurate 
and, certifying that he is competent to translate the document, asserts that the translation should state 
that the petitioner was one of the lecturers from television. Without documentary evidence to 
support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N 
Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez- 
Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Further, the translation of the article does not 
appear to be complete. The translation therefore does not comply with the provisions of 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(3), which requires that documents submitted in a foreign language must be 
Page 11 
accompanied by a full English translation. Regardless, while we do not dispute her participation 
in this seminar, it is not clear how her participation as a panel member equates to judging the 
work of others. 
Additionally, we note that the translator of the document also translated most of the other 
documents written in Serbian. This raises the issues of her competence to translate documents 
from Serbian into English and whether other translations provided by the petitioner are accurate. 
Furthermore, it also raises the issue as to how often the petitioner participated with the Belgrade 
Women's Studies and Gender Research Center and the nature of her "teaching" and "grading" 
the work of those participating with the center. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signzficance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of a document that she identified as "Background" published by 
the University of Belgrade in 2002. The translation accompanying the document indicates that it 
is a partial translation. Partial translations do not comply with the requirements of the regulation. 
See id. The petitioner appears to be the author of the document; however, she did not indicate 
how it constituted a contribution of major significance to her field. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted a March 3 1, 2008 letter from the University of 
Arts Faculty of Dramatic Arts stating that the "Belgrade University of Arts, Faculty of Dramatic 
Arts Library has a catalogued issue since 2002, with the following data: Original Title 'Drugi 
plan7 (in English - Background) date published: 10.1 1.2002." 
On appeal, the petitioner makes the following claim: 
The petitioner addressed multidimensional aspects of a two dimensional image 
while focusing on the depth version and background of the given image as a 
setting for main action to be developed. Her work is opposite to the currently used 
view (99%+) where the action unfolds in the foreground. 
The petitioner submitted no documentation to corroborate her statement and nothing to indicate 
that her work constituted a contribution of major significance to her field. Going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing 
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a February 13, 2007 letter from , professor and 
rector of the University of Arts in Belgrade, in which he states: 
[The petitioner's] work graduating paper "Depth of Background Perception, 
Second Field of Vision" was not only new, unusual and well refined but it was 
graded as one of the best written works of her class, having received the highest 
possible marks. 
Nothing in letter indicates that the petitioner's paper constitutes a contribution 
of major significance to her field. The petitioner provided no other documentation on appeal in 
support of this criterion. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner claims to meet this criterion based on the showing of her films in various film 
festivals. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) reveals that this 
criterion applies to the visual arts. The petitioner is a cinematographer. That said, we acknowledge 
that there may be instances where a film is part of an artistic exhibition or showcase such that the 
exhbition may be considered comparable evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4).~ 
The evidence submitted to meet a given criterion must be indicative of or consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim in the field if that statutory standard is to have any meaning. Thus, 
in order to meet this criterion, the exhbition or showcase must be so exclusive that the selection to 
be displayed in and of itself sets the artist apart from other members of the field. The fact that a film 
was shown at a screen festival is not by itself indicative of or consistent with national or 
international acclaim. 
The documentation submitted indicated that the petitioner's films were shown at several film 
festivals such as the ASC and the DAM Short Film Festival, primarily as student competitive 
entries. The evidence indicates that the selection of these films was based on a competition and 
not because of the petitioner's acclaim in her field of endeavor. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
To meet this criterion, the petitioner must show that she performed a leading or critical role for 
an organization or establishment and that the organization or establishment has a distinguished 
reputation. 
The petitioner submitted a February 
 a "media 
agency" in Bremen, Germany, signed by 
identifies his or her position within the company. The letter confirmed that the petitioner taught 
3 
 Such a claim should be advanced by the petitioner or counsel to be considered. 
Page 13 
"newly arrived generations" with the agency. The letter indicated that the petitioner "handled 
students from six different countries" and taught individual as well as group lessons. However, 
the letter did not indicate that the petitioner's role with the agency was in a leading or critical 
role. Further, the petitioner submitted no documentation to establish that Siidost-Medienagentur 
is an organization with a distinguished reputation. The petitioner submitted pages about the 
agency that appears to have been retrieved from a local Intranet website. However, these pages 
are in German and not accompanied by an English translation as required by 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(3). 
The petitioner also claims to meet this criterion as an assistant professor at the BK Academ of 
Fine Arts in Belgrade. The petitioner submitted an undated letter from d 
"Professor, chief lecturer, tenured cathedra for Film and TV camera work" with the Academy, 
who stated that he invited the petitioner to be his teaching assistant at the film academy and that 
"she delivered lectures to my students and she showed some of her films and talked about her 
experiences in feature and documentary industry." did not confirm that the 
petitioner was an assistant professor at the film academy or that her position as a teaching 
assistant was in a leading or critical role. Further, the petitioner submitted no documentation to 
establish that the BK Academy of Fine Arts in Belgrade was an organization or establishment 
with a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signzficantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in thefield. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of an April 2, 2007 certificate from Radio TV B92 Ltd. in 
Belgrade certifying that she worked for the organization from May 1996 to January 2004 as a 
cinematographer. The certificate indicated that "the average monthly salary" in Serbia in 2003 
was CSD 61,800. The petitioner also submitted a copy of a report of "average Salaries" from the 
Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia for the years 2002-2003. The report does not include 
the salaries or wages of individuals specific to the petitioner's field. In response to the WE, 
counsel asserts that the petitioner's "income was two times bigger that people who were 
affiliated in financial transactions," the highest salary included in the report. Nonetheless, the 
petitioner submitted no documentation to reflect the salary or other remuneration received by 
others in her field of endeavor. The petitioner must establish that her remuneration is high 
relative to others in her field. A comparison of compensation to others in unrelated activities and 
only to occupations in Serbia does not satisfy the requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The petitioner also submitted a copy of an invoice that she submitted to Maha Productions in the 
amount of $6,600 for work she performed during the period from December 11 to December 22, 
2006 and a check made payable to her from Maha Productions in the amount of $7,193.38. 
However, the petitioner again failed to submit documentation to establish how this payment 
compared to others in her field. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box ofJice receipts 
or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In her May 18, 2007 letter in support of her petition, the petitioner indicated that she was 
submitting evidence of this criterion. However, no evidence pertinent to this criterion was 
included in the petitioner's documentation. The petitioner did not address this issue in her 
response to the RFE and on appeal, counsel states that the petitioner does not claim to meet this 
criterion. Accordingly, we find that the record does not establish that the petitioner meets this 
criterion. 
The petitioner submitted letters of recommendation from several individuals who attest to her 
skill and talent as a cinematographer. a production executive with Eastman Kodak 
Company, stated that the petitioner "has risen to the top of the field amongst the thousands of 
film school students in America." president of National Geographic Films, stated 
that the petitioner "possess[es] the ualities to become a leading cinematographer given the right 
conditions and opportunities." q, the executive vice president of the Mole- 
Richardson Company, stated that the petitioner's "potential is virtually unlimited." These 
references do not state that the petitioner has risen to the top of her field but that she has the 
potential of doing so. A visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future 
eligibility or after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 
Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm. 1978); Matter of Katigbak, 14 
I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971). a professor at the Lawrence and Knstina Dodge 
College of Film and Media Arts at Chapman University, who stated that he is the "primary 
mentor" for the petitioner, is the only one of the petitioner's references who states categorically 
that the petitioner "has risen to the very top of her field." However, the evidence submitted by 
the petitioner does not support 
 assessment. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly 
demonstrate that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of 
the small percentage who has risen to the very top of her field of endeavor. Review of the record, 
however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an extent that she 
may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small 
percentage at the very top of her field. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility 
pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.