dismissed EB-1A Case: Cinematography

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Departmentof Ilomeland Securily
U.S. Cisenship und Immiuration 5erács
AdministrativeAppcWs(Hlice (AAo)
20 MassachuseusAve., N.W., MS2000
Washington.o(' 20529-2090
8 U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: AUG 0 8 2012 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien WorkerasanAlien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto Section
203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decisionof the AdministrativeAppealsOffice in your case. All of the documents
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Pleasehe advised that
anyfurtherinquiry thatyou mighthaveconcerningyour casemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believe the AAO inappropriatelyapplied the law in reachingits decision,or you haveadditional
information that you wish to haveconsidered,you may file a motion to reconsideror a motion to reopenin
accordancewith the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The
specific requirementsfor filing sucha motion can be found at 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5. Do not file any motion
directly with the AAO. Pleaseheawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto be filed within
30 days of the decision that the motion seeksto reconsider or reopen,
Thankyou,
PerryRhew /
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: TheDirector,NebraskaServiceCenter,deniedtheemployment-basedimmigrantvisa
petition,whichis nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) onappeal.Theappealwill be
dismissed.
The petitionerseeksclassificationasan "alien of extraordinaryability" in the arts in cinematography,
pursuantto section203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A).
Thedirectordeterminedthepetitionerhadnotestablishedthesustainednationalor internationalacclaim
necessaryto qualify for classificationasanalienof extraordinaryability.
Congresssetaveryhighbenchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryability by requiringthroughthestatute
that the petitionerdemonstratethe alien's"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim"and present
"extensivedocumentation"of the alien's achievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).Theimplementingregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)statesthatanaliencan
establishsustainednationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-timeachievementof a
major, internationallyrecognizedaward. Absentthe receiptof suchan award,the regulationoutlines
tencategoriesof specificobjectiveevidence.8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)through(x). Thepetitionermust
submitqualifying evidenceunderat leastthreeof the tenregulatorycategoriesof evidenceto establish
thebasiceligibility requirements.
Thepetitioner'spriority dateestablishedby thepetitionfiling dateis November5, 2010. On November
10,2010,the directorservedthe petitionerwith a requestfor evidence(RFE). After receivingthe
petitioner'sresponseto theRFE,thedirectorissuedherdecisiononDecember27,2010.Onappeal,the
petitionersubmitsa brief with additionaldocumentaryevidence. For the reasonsdiscussedbelow, the
AAO upholdsthedirector'sultimatedeterminationthat thepetitionerhasnot establishedhis eligibility
for theclassificationsought.
I. LAW
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart,that:
(1) Priorityworkers.-- Visasshallfirst bemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswho
arealiensdescribedin anyof thefollowing subparagraphs(A) through(C):
(A) Aliens with extraordinaryability, -- An alienis describedin thissubparagraphif --
(i) the alien hasextraordinaryability in the sciences,arts,education,business,or
athleticswhich has been demonstratedby sustainednationalor international
acclaim and whoseachievementshave been recognizedin the field through
extensivedocumentation,
(ii) the alien seeksto enter the United Statesto continue work in the area of
extraordinaryability,and
Page3
(iii) thealien'sentryinto the UnitedStateswill substantiallybenefitprospectively
theUnitedStates.
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)andlegacyImmigrationandNaturalizationService
(INS) haveconsistentlyrecognizedthatCongressintendedto seta very high standardfor individuals
seekingimmigrantvisasasaliensof extraordinaryability. SeeH.R. 723 101stCong.,2d Sess.59
(1990);56 Fed.Reg.60897,60898-99(Nov.29, 1991).Theterm"extraordinaryability" refersonlyto
thoseindividualsin thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopof thefieldof endeavor./d.;
8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2).
Theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)requiresthatthe petitionerdemonstratethealien'ssustained
acclaimandtherecognitionof hisor herachievementsin thefield. Suchacclaimmustbeestablished
eitherthroughevidenceof aone-timeachievement(thatis,a major,internationalrecognizedaward)or
throughthesubmissionof qualifyingevidenceunderat leastthreeof the ten categoriesof evidence
listedat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).
In 2010,theU.S.Courtof Appealsfor theNinthCircuit(NinthCircuit)reviewedthedenialof apetition
filed underthisclassification.Kazarianv. USCIS,596F.3d1115(9thCir. 2010). Althoughthecourt
upheldthe AAO's decisionto deny the petition, the court took issuewith the AAO's evaluationof
evidencesubmittedto meeta given evidentiarycriterion) With respectto the criteria at 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(vi), thecourtconcludedthatwhile USCISmayhaveraisedlegitimateconcerns
aboutthesignificanceof theevidencesubmittedto meetthosetwocriteria,thoseconcernsshouldhave
beenraisedin a subsequent"final meritsdetermination."Id. at 1121-22.
Thecourtstatedthatthe AAO's evaluationrestedon an improperunderstandingof the regulations.
Insteadof parsingthe significanceof evidenceaspart of the initial inquiry, the court statedthat the
properprocedureis tocountthetypesof evidenceprovided(whichtheAAO did)," andif thepetitioner
failed to submitsufficientevidence,"the properconclusionis thattheapplicanthasfailed to satisfythe
regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence(as the AAO concluded)."Id. at 1122(citing to
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)).
Thus,Kazariansetsforth a two-partapproachwheretheevidenceis first countedandthenconsidered
in thecontextof a final meritsdetermination.In thismatter,theAAO will reviewtheevidenceunder
theplainlanguagerequirementsof eachcriterionclaimed.As thepetitionerdid notsubmitqualifying
evidenceunderat leastthreecriteria,theproperconclusionis thatthepetitionerhasfailed to satisfythe
regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.Id.
1 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Page4
II. ANALYSIS
A. Previous0-1 NonimmigrantApproval
WhileU.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)hasapprovedatleastoneO-1nonimmigrant
visapetitionfiledonbehalfof thepetitioner,theprior approvaldoesnotprecludeUSCISfromdenying
an immigrant visa petition basedon a different, if similarly phrased,standard. First, in the motion
pictureor televisionindustry,theregulatoryrequirementsfor animmigrantalienof extraordinaryability
regulationdiffer dramaticallyfrom thosefor nonimmigrants,which requireevidenceof "extraordinary
achievement 8 C.F.R.§214.2(o)(1)(ii)(2).Theregulationat 8C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(ii)provides,in
pertmentpart:
Extraordinaryachievementwith respectto motionpictureandtelevisionproductionsas
commonlydefinedin theindustry,meansa very high level of accomplishmentin the
motion pictureor televisionindustryevidenceby a degreeof skill and recognition
significantlyabovethatordinarilyencounteredtotheextentthatthepersonisrecognized
asoutstanding,notable,or leadingin themotionpictureor televisionfield.
The regulation relating to the immigrant classification, 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(2), however. defines
extraordinaryabilityin anyfieldas"a levelof expertiseindicatingthattheindividualis onof thatsmall
percentagewho haverisento thevery topof thefield of endeavor."While thetenimmigrantcriteriaset
forthat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)appearin thenonimmigrantregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii),they
refer only to aliens who seekextraordinaryability in the fields of science,education,businessor
athletics. Rather,separatecriteriafor nonimmigrantaliensof extraordinaryability in themotionpicture
industryaresetforthin theregulationat8 C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(v).Thedistinctionbetweenotherfields
and the motion picture industry, which appearsin 8 C.F.R.§ 214(o) does not appearin 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h). As such,the petitioner'sapprovalfor a non-immigrantvisaunderthelesserstandardof
"extraordinaryachievement,"a standardcounselreferencesin his initial brief, is not evidenceof the
petitioner'seligibility for thesimilarly titled immigrantvisa.
In addition,it mustbenotedthatmanyI-140immigrantpetitionsaredeniedafterUSCISapprovesprior
nommmigrantpetitions.See,e.g.,Q DataConsulting,Inc. v.INS,293F. Supp.2d25 (D.D.C.2003);
IKEA USv. USDept.ofJustice,48F.Supp.2d22(D.D.C.1999);FedinBrothersCo.Ltd. v.Sava,724
F.Supp.I 103(E.D.N.Y.1989).BecauseUSCISspendslesstimereviewingFormI-129nonimmigrant
petitions than Form 1-140immigrantpetitions,somenonimmigrantpetitionsare simply approvedin
error. Q Data Consulting,Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see also TexasA&M Univ. v.
Upchurch,99 Fed.Appx.556,2004WL 1240482(5thCir. 2004)(findingthatprior approvalsdo not
precludeUSCISfrom denyinganextensionof theoriginal visa basedon a reassessmentof petitioner's
qualifications).
The AAO is not requiredto approveapplicationsor petitions where eligibility has not been
demonstrated,merelybecauseof prior approvalsthatmay havebeenerroneous.See,e.g.,Matterof
ChurchScientologyInternational,19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). It would be absurdto
Page5
suggestthat USCISor any agencymusttreatacknowledgederrorsasbinding precedent.SussexEngg.
Ltd.v.Montgomery,825F.2d1084,1090(6thCir. 1987),cert.denied,485U.S.1008(1988).
Furthermore,the AAO's authorityover theservicecentersis comparableto therelationshipbetweena
courtof appealsanda districtcourt. Evenif a servicecenterdirectorhadapprovedthenonimmigrant
petitionsonbehalfof thebeneficiary,theAAO wouldnotbeboundtofollow thecontradictorydecision
of a servicecenter.Glara Fashion,Inc. v. Holder, 11 CIV. 889 PAE, 2012 WL 352309*7
(S.D.N.Y.Feb.3, 2012);RoyalSiamv. Chertoff,484F.3d139,148(1stCir.2007);TapisInt'l v. /NS,
94F.Supp.2d 172, 177 (D.Mass.2000))(Dkt.10); Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS,
44F.Supp.2d800,803(E.D.La.1999),affd, 248F.3d1139(5thCir. 2001),cert.denied,122S.Ct.51
(200l).
B. EvidentiaryCriteria2
Documentationof the alien's receipt of lessernationally or internationally recognizedprizes or
awardsfor excellencein thefield of endeavor.
Thedirectordiscussedtheevidencesubmittedfor thiscriterionandfoundthatthepetitionerfailedto
establishhis eligibility. On appeal the petitionerdoesnot contestthe director'sfmdingsfor this
criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be
abandoned.Sepidvedav. U.S.Att'y Gen.,401F.3d1226,1228n.2 (11thCir. 2005);Hristovv.Roark,
No. 09-CV-27312011,2011WL 4711885at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y.Sept.30, 2011)(thecourt foundthe
plaintiff s claimsto be abandonedashe failed to raisethemon appealto the AAO). Accordingly, the
petitionerhasnotsubmittedqualifyingevidenceunderthis criterion.
Documentationof the alien's membershipin associationsin thefield for which classificationis
sought,whichrequireoutstandingachievementsof their members,asjudgedby recognizednational
or internationalexpertsin their disciplinesorfields.
The directordiscussedthe evidencesubmittedfor this criterion andfound that the petitionerfailed to
establishhis eligibility. On appeal,the petitionerdoesnot contestthe director'sfindings for this
criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be
abandoned.Sepulveda401 F.3d at 1228n.2; Hristov, 2011WL 4711885,at *9. Accordingly,the
petitionerhasnotsubmittedqualifyingevidenceunderthiscriterion.
2The petitioner doesnot claim to meetor submit evidencerelating to the regulatorycategoriesof evidencenot
discussedin thisdecision.
Page6
Publishedmaterial about the alien in professional or inajor trade publications or other major
media.relating to the alien s work in thefield for which classificationis sougin Suchevidence
shall incimiethetitle, date,andauthorof thematerial,andanynecessarytranslation.
Throughouttheproceeding,counselhasmischaracterizedthiscriterionby assertingthatthepetitioner
"has achievednationalor internationalrecognitionfor achievementsevidencedby critical reviewsor
otherpublishedmaterialby or aboutthe individual in major newspapers,tradejournals, magazmesor
other publications." This language,however,is found in the nonimmigrantregulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 214(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2)anddiffers from the languageat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii),thecriterion at issue
for this immigrantpetition.
Pursuantto 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(iii), this criterion contains three evidentiary requirementsthe
petitionermust satisfy. First, the publishedmaterialmust primarily be about the petitionerand the
contentsmustrelateto the petitioner'swork in the field underwhich he seeksclassificationas an
immigrant.Thepublishedmaterialmustalsoappearin professionalor majortradepublicationsor other
majormedia(in theplural). Professionalor majortradepublicationsareintendedfor expertsin thefield
or in the industry. To qualify as major media,the publicationshouldhavesignificantnationalor
internationaldistributionandbepublishedin apredominantnationallanguage.Thefinalrequirementis
thatthepetitionerprovideeachpublisheditem'stitle, date,andauthorandif thepublisheditemis in a
foreignlanguage,thepetitionermustprovidea translationthatcomplieswith therequirementsfoundat
8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3).Thepetitionermustsubmitevidencesatisfyingall of theseelementsto meetthe
plainlanguagerequirementsof this criterion.
The director determinedthat the petitionermet the requirementsof this criterion. The AAO departs
from the director's favorableeligibility determinationrelatedto this criterion for the reasonsoutlined
below. Within the initial submission.the petitionerprovideda list of evidencewithin counsel'sbrief
indicatingthe evidencethat shouldbe consideredunderthe publishedmaterialcriterionat 8C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(iii),butfailedtoclaimthecriterionfor thedisplayof thealien'sworkcriterionat8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(vii). However,in responseto the RFE, the petitioneralso listed someof the same
evidencepreviouslyclaimedunderthe publishedmaterialcriterion,andrequestedit be considered
underthe displayof the alien'swork criterion. The director'sdecisiongrantedboth the published
materialcriterionaswell asthe displayof the alien'swork criterionwithoutanydiscussionof what
evidencesufficientlydemonstratedthepetitioner'seligibility undereach.Consequently.theAAO must
presumethe director followed the petitioner's latest directions listed in the RFE. The petitioner
provided 15articles,threephotoswith a handwrittencaption,five movie reviews,four film synopses,
andonefestivalprogramasevidenceunderthis criterion.
Regardingthe festivalprogram,althougha film in which thepetitioneris listedasthecinematographer
appearedwithin the program,neitherthe programnor the
festivalareaboutthe petitionerand relatingto his work in the field. Regardless,not everyprinted
documentconstitutespublishedmaterial. A printed programfor distributionat a festival is not
publishedmaterialin aprofessionalor majortradepublicationor othermajormedia.
Page7
Regardingthe threephotographsappearingon the websiteidlebrain.com,the petitionerandcounsel
misconstruethe type of evidencecontemplatedby 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iii),which plainly states:
"Suchcvidenceshall includethetitle, date,andauthorof thematerial,andany necessarytranslation.
(Emphasisadded).Thesubmittedevidencelacksall of theelementsrequiredby thelastsentenceof
thiscriterionasthesearenot publishedwrittenor broadcastworksthatarecontemplatedasqualifying
under this criterion. The plain languageof the regulationrequiresan author, title, and dateof the
publishedmaterial,whichispresentinwrittenpublishedworks(ortranscriptsof broadcastworks).The
petitionerfailedto providedocumentaryevidenceof theserequiredelementstherebydisqualifyingthe
submittedevidence.Moreover,althoughthephotographis accompaniedby self-servinghandwritten
notations;goingon recordwithoutsupportingdocumentaryevidenceis not sufficientfor purposesof
meetingthepetitioner'sburdenof proofin theseproceedings.MatterofSoffici,22 I&N Dec.158,165
(Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of TreasureCraft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r
1972)). .
Regarding the movie reviews, articles that are about a movie are not about the petitioner.
Cf Negro-Plumpew Dkin,2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJat *l, 7(D. Nev.Sept.8,2008)(upholdinga finding
thatarticlesabouta showarenot abouttheactor). While thepetitioneris briefly mentionedwithin the
reviews,he and his work are not the primary topic of the article. Moreover, the majority of these
reviewsaremissingthenameof theauthor. Additionally, thereviewsoriginatingfrom thenytimes.com
website were performedby the website'sanonymousreadersrather than by an employeeor
representativeof theNewYorkTimes.SuchpostedmaterialontheInternetisnotpublishedmaterialby
identifiedjournalistsor otherauthorsascontemplatedby theregulation.
On]voneof thefifteenarticlescanbeconstruedto beaboutthepetitioner,relatingto hiswork in the
field. This article is titled, :o cinematographRamcharan'sflick andappearedon the
website,indiaglitz.com. This short article doesnot bear the author's name nor doesthe petitioner
indicatewhich of the threerequiredpublicationtypesunderwhich this evidencequalifiedandthe
recordcontainsnoevidencethatthewebsiteis a professionalor major tradepublicationor othermajor
media. The plain languageof the regulationrequiresnot only the title andthe date,but also that the
petitionerprovidethenameof theauthor. Theremainingarticlesareprimarilyaboutfilms for which
the petitionerperformedwork. Articles that arenot aboutthe petitionerdo not meetthis regulatory
criterion.,4ccordNegro-Plumpen Okin,2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJat *7.
As such,thepetitionerhasnotsubmittedprobativeevidencethatmeetstheplain languagerequirements
of thiscriterion.
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly. artistic. athletic. or business-related
contributionsof majorsignificancein thefield.
Theplain languageof this regulatorycriterioncontainsmultiple evidentiaryelementsthatthepetitioner
mustsatisfy. The first is evidenceof thepetitioner'scontributions(in theplural) in his field. These
contributionsmust havealreadybeenrealizedratherthan being potential,future contributions. The
Page8
petitionermustalsodemonstratethathiscontributionsareoriginal.Theevidencemustestablishthatthe
contributions are scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-relatedin nature. The final
requirementis thatthecontributionsriseto thelevel of majorsignificancein thefield asa whole,rather
thanto a projector to anorganization.The phrase"major significance"is not superuuousand.thus.it
hassomemeaning.Silvermanv.EastrichMultipleInvestorFund,LP., 51 F.3d 28,3I (3®Cir. l995)
quotedin APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2°dCir.Sep 15, 2003). Contributionsof major
significanceconnotesthat the petitioner's work has significantly impactedthe field. The petitioner
mustsubmitevidencesatisfyingall of theseelementsto meetthe plain languagerequirementsof this
entenon.
Within the initial petition filing brief, counseldoes not directly addressthe contributionsof major
significancecriterionfoundat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v).In responseto thedirector'sRFE,counsel
discussedlettersfrompeersandexpertsin thepetitioner'sfield of film-making underthiscriterion. The
director determinedthat the petitionerfailed to meetthe requirementsof this criterion. On appeal,
counsePsbriefpointstothepreviouslysubmittedexpertlettersin additiontowhatcounselcharacterizes
as"guidelines"fromUSCIS.
RegardingthepurportedUSCISguidelines,theappellatebriefstates:
Seeattachedguidelinesform [sic] USCIS about this point. Which clearly statethat
Testimonyor supportlettersfrom expertswhich discussbeneficiary'scontribution of
major significanceor evidencethat the beneficiary'smajor significantcontributionhas
provokedwidespreadpubliccommentaryin thefiled [sic]or hasbeenwidelyvoted[sic;
shouldstatewidely cited],Contractswith companyusinghisservices,etc.
ThepurportedUSC[Sguidelinesbearno indicationthatthedocumentationoriginatedfrom USCISas
guidelineson whichthepublicmayrely. In fact,thedocumentcontainsa referenceto theAmerican
ImmigrationLawyersAssociation(AILA), which states,"AILA InfoNetDoc.No. I 1012168.(Posted
01/21/11)." As this evidencedoesnot containany indicationthat USCISissuedthis documentas
official guidance.counsel'sassertionwithintheappellatebriefthatsuchevidenceis sufficientby itself
will not be consideredwithin this decision. The unsupportedassertionsof counseldo not constitute
evidence.Matterof Dhaighena,19I&N Dec.533,534n.2 (BIA 1988);MatterofLaureano,19I&N
Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983);Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez,17I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). The
unsupportedassertionsof counselin a brief arenot evidenceandthusarenotentitledto anyevidentiary
weight.SeeINSv.Phinpathya,464U.S.183,188-89n.6(1984).
Moreover,the documentpurportedto constitute"guidelines" appearsto be a standardtemplatefor an
RFE. Significantly,thatdocumentincludesthefollowinglanguage:
Note: l_ctlersandtestimonies,if submitted,mustprovideas muchdetail as possible
aboutthebeneficiary'scontributionandmustexplain,in deail,how thecontributionwas
"original" (not merelyreplicatingthe work of others)andhow they wereof "major
Page9
significance. Generalstatementsregardingthe importanceof the endeavorsare
insufficient.
The petitionersubmittednumerousreferenceletterspraisinghis talentsas a cinematographerand
discussinghis activitiesin the field suchaswinningawards,workingon high profile projects. The
lettersalsoaffirm thathisfilms havebeenscreenedat majorfilm festivals. Talentandexperiencein
one's field, however, are not necessarily indicative of original artistic contributions of major
significancein the petitioner's field. It is not enoughto be skillful and knowledgeableand to have
othersattestto thosetalents. An alienmusthavedemonstrablyimpactedhis field in orderto meetthis
regulatorycriterion. The referencedletterssubmittedby the petitionerbriefly discusshis successand
artistic activities, but they do not provide specific examplesof how the petitioner's work has
significantly irnpactedthe field at large or otherwiseconstitutesoriginal contributionsof major
significance.While the petitioner has served as a cinematographerof films, it is inherent to the
occupation to direct the Slm's photographyand additionaljob-related elements. The petitioner's
ability to makea living in his occupation,evena competitiveone,doesnot demonstratethathehas
madecontributionsof majorsignificancein thefield.
Theletterfrom a writer anddirectorreiteratedtheclaimswithin someof theother
lettersthat the petitioner is an extraordinarytalent and that the petitioner was critical to the success
of a film on which bothmenworked. It is not sufficientfor thepetitionerto havean impacton a
singlefilm as asserted.Insteadthe regulationspecificallyre ires the etitionerto
havemade"contributionsof major significancein the field," asa whole. Directorof
RedIceFilms indicatedthatthepetitioner"is undoubtedlythemostpromisingtalentof his generation,
andthat the etitioner's talentswere directly responsiblefor the successof a "nationwideawareness
campaign , however,did not articulatehow thepetitionerhashadanimpactin his field to
theextentthatit isconsideredto beof majorsignificance.Nordid thepetitionerprovidedocumentary
evidencetocorroborateanyimpacthisoriginalworkhashadin hisfield.
The Boardof ImmigrationAppeals(BIA) hasheldthat testimonyshouldnot be disregardedsimply
becauseit is "self-serving." See,e.g.,Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332(BIA 2000) (citing
cases).The Boardalso held, however: "We not only encourage,but requirethe introductionof
corroborativetestimonialanddocumentaryevidence,whereavailable."Id. If testimonialevidence
lacksspecificity,detail,or credibility, thereis a greaterneedfor the petitionerto submitcorroborative
evidence.Marwrof'Y-B-,21I&N Dec.I l36 (BIA 1998).
Vague,solicitedlettersfrom localcolleaguesthatdo not specificallyidentifycontributionsor provide
specificexamplesof howthosecontributionsinfluencedthefield areinsufficient.Kazarianv. USCIS,
580F.3d1030,1036(9'"Cir.2009)aff'dinpart596F.3d1115(9thCir.2010).In 2010,theKazarian
courtreiteratedthattheAAO's conclusionthat"lettersfromphysicsprofessorsattestingto [thealien'sj
contributionsin the field" was insufficientwas "consistentwith the relevantregulatorylanguage.
596F.3dat 1122.Theopinionsof expertsin thefieldarenotwithoutweightandhavebeenconsidered
above. While suchletterscanprovideimportantdetailsaboutthepetitioner'sskills theycannotform
the cornerstoneof a successfulextraordinaryability claim. USCISmay, in its discretion,useas
Page10
advisoryopinionsstatementssubmittedas experttestimony. SeeMatter of' Caron international,
19I&N Dec.791.795(Comm'r 1988).However,USCISisultimatelyresponsiblefor makingthefinal
determinationregardinganalien'seligibility for thebenefitsought./d. Thesubmissionof lettersfrom
expertssupportingthe petition is not presumptiveevidenceof eligibility; USCIS may evaluatethe
contentof thoselettersasto whethertheysupportthealien's eligibility. Seeid. at 795;seealsoMatter
of V-K-,24I&N Dec.500,n.2(BIA 2008)(notingthatexpertopiniontestimonydoesnotpurporttobe
evidenceas to "fact"). USCIS may evengive lessweight to an opinion that is not corroborated.in
accordwith other information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; seealso Matter of Soffici,
22 I&N Dec. at 165. Thus,the contentof the writers' statementsandhow they becameawareof the
petitioner'sreputationareimportantconsiderations.Evenwhenwrittenby independentexperts,letters
solicitedby an alien in supportof an immigrationpetition are of less weight than preexisting,
independentevidenceof originalcontributionsof majorsignificance.
Consequently,thepetitionerhasnot submittedevidencethatmeetstheplain languagerequirementsof
thiscriterion.
Evidenceof thedisplayofthe alien s work in thefield at artistic exhibitionsor showcases.
The directordeterminedthat the petitionermet the requirementsof this criterion. The petitioner
providedtwo pagesthat allegedlyrepresentthe festivalprogramfor the Sixth Indo-AmericanArts
Council,Inc.withoutprovidingthewholedocument.Thepagethatallegedlyestablishedthata film on
which the petitionerworkedwas resentedat the festivalcontainsonly text, threepictures,anda
descriptionof thefilm . Thepetitionerprovidedadditionalevidencewithinthe
recordof proceedingthatestablishedthatheservedasthecinematographerfor thisfilm. Althoughthis
descriptioncorrelateswith oneof thepetitioner'sfilms, it doesnot demonstratethatthis film wasshown
at the festivalas it doesnot containany text bearingthe festival's name,nor doesit containany other
representationsto sufficientlylink it with the festival. Nevertheless,the petitionersubmittedother
sufficientdocumentationsuchthattheAAO affirmsthedirector'sfindingthatthepetitionermeetsthe
plain languagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
Evidencethat the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizationsor
establishmentsthathavea distinguishedreputation.
Initially, in responseto the director's RFE, and on appeal,counselassertsthat the petitioner has
performed a leading or critical role "for organizationand productionsthat have a distinguished
reputation The regulation, however, requires a leading or critical role for "organizations or
establishments not individualproductions.
Morespecifically,thiscriterionanticipatesthata leadingroleshouldbeapparentby its positionin the
overall organizationalhierarchyand that it be accompaniedby the role's matchingduties. A critical
role should be apparentfrom the petitioner'simpact on the organizationor the establishment's
activities. The petitioner'sperformancein this role shouldestablishwhetherthe role wascritical for
organizationsor establishmentsasa whole. The petitionermustdemonstratethat theorganizationsor
PageI1
establishments(in the plural) havea distinguishedreputation. While neither the regulationnor
precedentspeakto what constitutesa distinguishedreputation,Merriam-Webster'sonline dictionary
definesdistinguishedas,"markedby eminence,distinction,or excellence."' Dictionariesarenot of
themselvesevidence,buttheymaybereferredto asaidsto thememoryandunderstandingof thecourt.
Nix v.Hedden,149U.S.304,306(1893).Therefore,it isthepetitioner'sburdentodemonstratethatthe
orgamzationsor establishmentsclaimed under this criterion are marked by eminence,distinction,
excellence,or an equivalentreputation. The petitionermust submit evidencesatisfying all of these
elementsto meettheplain languagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
Further,the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requiresevidencethat the
alienhasperformedin a leadingor critical role for "organizationsor establishments"in the plural,
consistentwith the statutoryrequirementfor extensivedocumentation.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i) of
theAct.
Thepetitionerprovidedsomeof thesameexpertlettersthatheclaimedunderthecontributionsof major
significancecriterionat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). The directordeterminedthat thepetitionerfailed to
meettherequirementsof thiscriterion.
The majority of the lettersmerely claim that the petitionerwas crucial to projects,productions,and
films without describing how he was instrumentalwithin or responsiblefor the successof the
organizationasawhole. Simplybeingresponsiblefor thesuccessof aprojector film, or performingin
aleadingrolefor anindividualcampaignisinsufficienttodemonstrateeligibilityunderthiscriterion.
The letter from , reflectedthat the
petitioner"has provedinvaluablein the tremendousgrowth of my company. He was instrumentalin
settingup the stateof theart Digital Intermediatefacility at Sprit,which is amongthe finestin the
world. First, doesnot explainhow thepetitionerwas"instrumental"to theset-upof the
digital intermediatefacility. providesno detailasto whatthe petitionerdid for this
facility. With regardto assertionsaboutthe quality of the facility, going on record
withoutsupportingdocumentaryevidenceis notsufficientfor purposesof meetingtheburdenof proof
in theseproceedings.Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of TreasureCraft of
California,I&N Dec.at 190).Therecordcontainsnoindependentconfirmationasto thedistinguished
natureof Spirit MediaPvt. Ltd. or the independentreputationof the digital intermeidatefacility to
which thepetitionercontributed.
, a directorandproducer assertsthat the petitionershotmostof
recentfilms andis "a key collaborator[who] hasbeenparamountin thesuccessof many
award-winningfilms." Thepetitioner,however,did not submitindependentevidencecorroboratingthe
distinguishedreputationa
3Seehup;/Av3y3y,merriam-webster.comMietiomtryMininguished,[accessedonJuly31,2012,acopyof whichis
incorporatedinto therecordof proceeding.]
Page12
Theletterform assertsthatthepetitioner
optedfor Panavisioncamerasin India,wheremostcameraoperatorsusedArri cameras.
reflectsthat the 1etitioner'suseof thesecameraswasinstrumentalin the successof the company's
operations. explainsthatthepetitioner"hasput ourcamerasandlensesthroughrigorous
testingandhaspushedfor it to beusednot only on his films but alsomanyotherproductions."The
record does not reflect that the petitioner officially promoted Panavisioncamerasthrough
advertisementsor othermeansof promotion.Not everyclientor customerservesa leadingor critical
rolefor thecompanywhoseproductsheuses.
Noneof the evidenceprovideddemonstrateshow the petitionerservedin a leadershiprole within an
organization or establishmentwith a distinguishedreputation and for the entire organizationor
establishment.nor doesit demonstratehow the successof theorgamzationor establishmentitself is
considerablyattributableto any critical role the petitionerperformedwithin the organizationor
establishmentwith a distinguishedreputation. The letters consideredaboveprimarily contain bare
assertionsof acclaimandvagueclaimsof contributionswithoutspecificallyidentifyingcontributions
and providingspecificexamplesof how thosecontributionsrise to a level consistentwith major
significancein thefield. Merelyrepeatingthe languageof thestatuteor regulationsdoesnotsatisfythe
petitioner'sburdenof proof. SeeFedinBros.Co.,Ltd. v. Sava,724F. Supp.I103. I108 (E.D.N.Y.
1989),affd, 905F. 2d 41 (2d.Cir. 1990);AvvrAssociates,Inc. v. Meissner,1997WL 188942al *5
(S.D.N.Y.). Similarly,USCISneednotacceptprimarilyconclusoryassertions.See1734/nc. v. The
AttorneyGeneralof theUnitedStates,745F.Supp.9, 15(D.C. Dist. 1990).
Therefore,the petitionerhasnot submittedevidencethatmeetstheplain languagerequirementsof this
entenon.
Evidencethat thealien hascommandeda high salary or othersignificantivhigh remunerationJ'or
services,in relation to othersin thefield.
The plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(ix)requiresthe petitionerto submit
evidenceof a "high salaryor othersignificantlyhighremunerationfor services.in relationto othersin
thefield." Averagesalaryinformationfor thoseperformingwork in a relatedbut distinctoccupation
with different responsibilitiesis not a properbasisfor comparison.The petitionermust submit
documentaryevidenceof theearningsof thosein his occupationperformingsimilarwork at thetop
levelof thefield.4Thepetitionermustpresentevidenceof objectiveearningsdatashowingthathehas
earneda "high salary" or "significantly high remuneration"m comparson with those perfom1ing
similar work duringthesametime period. SeeMatter of Price, 20 I&N Dec.953,954(Assoc.Comm'r
4WhiletheAAO acknowledgesthatadistrictcourt'sdecisionisnotbindingprecedent,wenotethatinRaciner.
/NS, 1995WL 153319at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb.16,1995),thecourtstated,"[T]he plainreadingof thestatutesuggests
thatthe appropriatefield ofcomparison is not a compansonof Racine'sability with that of all the hockeyplayers
at all levels of play; but rather, Racine'sability as a professionalhockey player within the NHL This
interpretationis consistentwith . . . thedefinitionof theterm8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2),andthediscussionsetforth
in thepreambleat56Fed.Reg.60898-99."
Page13
1994)(consideringprofessionalgolfer'searningsversusotherPGATourgolfers);seealsoGrimsonn
INS, 934 F. Supp.965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996)(consideringNHI enforcer'ssalaryversusotherNilL
enforcers);Mani v.INS,891F. Supp.440,444-45(N.D.Ill. 1995)(comparingsalaryof NH1 defensive
playerto salaryof otherNHL defensemen).
Accom an g theinitial petitionfiling thepetitionerprovidedhiscontractswith
In responseto the director'sRFEthe petitionerprovidedthis same
evidencein additionto acontractwith Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitioner
failedto meettherequirementsof thiscriterion.
Onappeal,counsersbrief merelystates:"Thecontractsweresubmittedwith businessplan." It is not
clearhowthepetitionerintendedto establishthathisevidencesatisfiedthiscriterionwhenhedid not
identify an error in law or anerror in fact on thedirector's part,andalso failed to provideevidenceof
theremunerationof othersat thetopof hisfield for theAAO to comparewith hisown remuneration.
The directorspecificallynotedwithin herdecisionthat therecordlackedevidenceto comparewith the
petitioner'sandthepetitionerdid notattemptto remedythis shortcoming.
On appeal,the petitionermakesonly passingreferenceto this issue,stating:"The contractswere
submittedwith businessplan.' The petitionerfailed to identify an incorrectapplicationof law or
statementof fact underlying the director's finding that the petitioner's contracts alone were
insufficient.TheAAO, therefore,considersthisissueto beabandoned.Desravinesv. U.S.Auv.Gen.,
343 Fed.Appx.433,435 (11th Cir. 2009)(a passingreferencein the argumentssectionof a brief
withoutsubstantiveargumentsisinsufficientto raisethatgroundonappeal).
Evidenceof commercialsuccessesin theperformingarts,asshownby boxofficereceiptsor record,
cassette,compactdisk,or videosales.
Thedirectordiscussedtheevidencesubmittedfor this criterionandfoundthatthepetitionerfailedto
establishhis eligibility. On appeal,the petitioner does not contestthe director's findings for this
criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be
abandoned.Sepulveda401 F.3d at 1228n.2; Hristov, 2011WL 4711885,at *9. Accordingly,the
petitionerhasnotsubmittedqualifyingevidenceunderthiscriterion.
C. Summary
The petitionerhasfailed to submitrelevantandprobativeevidenceto satisfy theantecedentregulatory
requirementof threetypesof evidence.
III. CONCLUSION
Thedocumentationsubmittedin supportof a claimof extraordinaryability mustclearlydemonstrate
thatthealienhasachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandisoneof thesmallpercentage
whohasrisentotheverytopof thefieldof endeavor.
Page14
Had the petitioner submittedthe requisiteevidenceunder at least three evidentiary categones,in
accordancewith the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determinationthat
considersall of theevidencein thecontextof whetheror not thepetitionerhasdemonstrated:(1) a
1evel of expertiseindicatingthattheindividualis oneof thatsmaHpercentagewhohaverisento the
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor"and(2) "that the alienhassustainednationalor international
acclaimandthat his or her achievementshavebeenrecognizedin the field of expertise." 8C.F.R.
§§204.5(h)(2)and(3); seealsoKazarian,596 F.3dat 1119-20.While theAAO concludesthatthe
evidenceis notindicativeof a levelof expertiseconsistentwith thesmallpercentageat theverytopof
thefield or sustainednationalor internationalacclaim,theAAO neednotexplainthatconclusionin a
final meritsdetermination.' Rather,theproperconclusionis thatthepetitionerhasfailedto satisfythe
antecedentregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.Id. at 1122.
Thepetitionerhasnotestablishedeligibility pursuantto section203(b)(1)(A)of theAct andthepetition
maynotbeapproved.
Theburdenof proofin visapetitionproceedingsremainsentirelywith thepetitioner. Section291of the
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361;Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988)(citing Matter of
Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966)). Here, the petitionerhas not sustainedthat burden.
Accordingly,theappealwi[I bedismissed.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.
The AAO maintainsde novoreview of all questionsof fact andlaw. SeeSoltanev. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143,145(3d
Cir.2004).In anyfutureproceeding,theAAO maintainsthejurisdictiontoconducta finalmeritsdetermination
astheofficethatmadethelastdecisionin thismatter.8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(ii).Seealsosection103(a)(1)of
theAct; section204(b)of theAct; DHSDelegationNumber0150.1(effectiveMarch1,2003);8 C.F.R.§ 2.1
(2003);8 C.F.R.§ 103.l(t)(3)(iii)(2(K)3);Matterof Aurelio,19I&N Dec.458,460(BIA 1987)(holdingthat
legacyINS, now USCIS,is thesoleauthoritywith thejurisdiction to decidevisapetitions).