dismissed EB-1A Case: Cinematography

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-T-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 2, 2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner is a college television station. It seeks to classify the Beneficiary, a cinematographer and 
broadcast associate, as an individual of extraordinary ability in the arts. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). This classification makes 
visas available to foreign nationals who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained 
national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in their field 
through extensive documentation. 
The Director, Nebraska Service Center, .denied the petition. The Director determined that the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the initial requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), which 
necessitates either 1) evidence of the Beneficiary's receipt of a one-time major achievement, or 2) 
documentation that shows he meets at least three of ten regulatory criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits no new evidence but 
argues that the Director erred in concluding that the Beneficiary did not meet the lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards criterion, the published material about the Beneficiary 
criterion, the original artistic contributions of major significance criterion, and the display at 
exhibitions or showcases criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), (v), (vii). 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
The Petitioner may establish his eligibility by demonstrating extraordinary ability through sustained 
national or international acclaim and achievements that have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation. Specifically, section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
Aliens with extraordinary ability.-- An alien is described in this subparagraph if-
(i) the alien has extraordi_nary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim and 
Matter ofC-T-
whose achievements have been recognized m 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 into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to "those individuals in that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a beneficiary's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of his achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is a major, internationally recognized award). If a petitioner does not submit this documentation, 
then it must provide sufficient qualifying evidence indicating that the beneficiary meets at least three of 
the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) (discussing a two-part review 
where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, 
considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 
126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011); Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that United States Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) examines "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, 
both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact 
to be proven is probably true"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
1 
Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the Petitioner, as initial evidence, may present a one­
time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. In this case, the Petitioner has 
not claimed or shown that the Beneficiary is the recipient of a qualifying award at a level similar to 
that of the Nobel Prize. As such, the Petitioner must provide at least three of the ten types of 
documentation listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the basic eligibility requirements. 
1 We have reviewed all of the Petitioner's evidence and will address those criteria it indicates the Beneficiary meets or 
for which it has submitted relevant and probative documentation. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-T-
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary meets this criterion because three films with 
which he was associated won multiple awards at a variety of film festivals. The plain regulatory 
language requires that the Petitioner show not only that the Beneficiary has won prizes or awards, 
but that these accolades are nationally or internationally recognized, and are awarded for excellence 
in the field of endeavor. The Petitioner has not made the requisite showing. 
The Petitioner indicated that three of the Beneficiary's films received nationally or internationally 
recognized awards. It stated the film received a variety of awards, such as the 
at the and the for the 
Although the Petitioner claims in 
the appellate brief that won four awards at film festivals, it provided an 
printout that identified only three awards that received: 
at the the for the 
and the for 
appears to have been nominated for a 
at the 
at the 
the 2013 but there is no evidence that it received the award. 
at 
The Petitioner provided no corroborating evidence, such as trophies, certificates, or pictures 
depicting the Beneficiary's receipt if these awards. Further, while the Petitioner states in a letter 
which accompanied the appellate brief that he submitted "documentation of selection criteria, 
applicant pool, and the level of international recognition of each of these awards;" this evidence is 
not present in the record. Rather, the record contains a list from for identifying the three 
awards and other nominations for this film. The Petitioner provided no information about the three 
festivals that granted the awards. 
For the Petitioner submitted some background information from the websites of 
various film festivals with archived lists of past award recipients. Some of the websites identify the 
countries from which submissions are made (e.g. and the 
Others identify the requirements for submitting entries (e.g. 
-
However, none of the websites identify the criteria used to grant the awards or prizes or the specific 
pool of candidates from which competitors are drawn. Further, the Petitioner provided no evidence 
demonstrating the national or international recognition of the awards granted by any of these 
festivals, with one exception. The Petitioner provided some historical background on the 
as well as a list of past award recipients and some information which suggests a level 
of international recognition within certain film genres (documentaries, animated films and short 
fiction films). However, the record shows that judges at this festival presented the 
award for the Director of the specifically to The evidence does not show that 
this award applied to any other aspect of the production of the film. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-T-
executive director of the petitioning organization, states that the film 
"was chosen as an and won the 
at the However, the record contains no evidence to substantiate 
this statement. According to the list of which appears on 
while was nominated for a in 2012, the film did not win the 
award.L The Petitioner must resolve any material inconsistencies in the record by competent, 
objective evidence. Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead the AAO to reevaluate the 
reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration 
benefit. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582,591-592 (BIA 1988). 
With respect to the Petitioner presented a screen print from what appears to be an 
online news publication entitled The article, ' 
contains a sentence which reads, "The award for the went to 
However, this brief mention is not corroborated by actual evidence of the award. 
Further, according to the website, was nominated but did not win the award. In 
addition, although the Petitioner offered some background information on none of the 
documentation identifies as the recipient of any awards issued by that entity. 
Uncorroborated affirmations are insufficient to meet the Petitioner's burden of proof. See Matter of 
Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft ofCalifornia14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
also claims 
that the Beneficiary functioned as the cinematographer "for the 2007 
which won numerous awards "including the 
at the 2007 However, the record includes an list of 
films in which the Beneficiary is credited and is not among them. The Beneficiary is identified 
as the cinematographer on the film but there is no evidence in the record demonstrating that this 
film won any awards. Given the multiple inconsistencies present in letter, we have 
reason to doubt the reliability of the letter in its entirety. See Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 582 and 591. 
· For these reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied the burden of proof in meeting 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 classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
To meet this criterion, the Petitioner relies upon a single newspaper article as well as reviews of a 
film with which the Beneficiary was associated. In general, in order for published material to meet 
this criterion, it must be about the beneficiary and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify as major media, the 
publication should have significant national or international distribution. Some newspapers, such as 
2 http://www.imdb.com/event. (accessed July 6, 20 16), a copy of which is incorporated into the record . 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-T-
the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because 
of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers. 3 Furthermore, the 
regulation requires that "such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
The Petitioner cites the article '' from a 2012 issue of 
as written material about the Beneficiary. However, the article is about the film 
detailing the musical experiences of the main character, The article only 
briefly mentions the Beneficiary as having "greatly contributed to the movie by being in charge of 
various tasks - among other things, he was a chief of lighting .... " 
The Petitioner makes reference to movie reviews for the film as indicative of the 
Beneficiary's work in the field, even though the reviews do not mention the Beneficiary by name. 
However, the regulations require that published material be about the Beneficiary and relating to his 
work in the field. Articles that are not about the petitioner do not meet this regulatory criterion. See, 
e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV -820-ECR-RJJ at * 1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a 
finding that articles about a show are not about the actor). All of the reviews analyze the story of 
None mention the Beneficiary or reference any contribution that he made to the film. 
Additionally, the Petitioner included seven articles about the film from foreign 
language newspapers. · Though each article included a certified statement from the translator, 
attesting that the translations are complete and accurate, there were omissions in the text as 
illustrated by numerous ellipses. As the documents are not complete, they do not conform to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § l03.2(b)(3), which requires any document containing foreign language 
submitted to USCIS to be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator 
has certified as complete and accurate. Because the Petitioner did not submit properly certified 
translations of the documents, we cannot determine whether the evidence supports the Petitioner's 
claims. Further, of the material which was translated, none mentions the Beneficiary or his work on 
the film. Moreover, the Petitioner provided no evidence demonstrating that any of the newspapers in 
which the articles appeared are professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not provided evidence which satisfies 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 allied .field of specification for which 
classification is sought. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires "evidence of the alien's 
3 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example , 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia , for 
instance, does not meet this criterion. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-T-
participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an 
allied field of specialization for which classification is sought." A review of the record of 
proceeding, however, does not reflect that the Petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence 
establishing that the Beneficiary meets the plain language of the regulation as outlined below. We 
therefore withdraw the Director's determination for this criterion. 
The Petitioner filed the instant petition in April 2015. With the initial submission, the Petitioner did 
not claim that the Beneficiary met this criterion and provided no evidence that he served as a judge 
of the work of others. However, in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the 
Petition~r indicated that the Beneficiary was invited to serve as a judge for the 2015 
As evidence of this invitation, the Petitioner submitted a Jetter, dated in October 2015, 
from the awards director for the 
In her letter, confirmed that the Beneficiary was invited to serve as 
a judge of the and that he participated in judging entries in categories including 
photography, sports, arts/entertainment. However, did not identify the date upon which 
the award ceremony was held or the date upon which the Beneficiary performed his judicatory 
duties. A review of the website for the shows that the award ceremony was held 
m 2015,5 after the filing of the instant petition. 
Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). A petition cannot be approved at a future date 
after the beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Jzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 
175 (Comm'r 1998). That decision, citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), 
further provides that USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing 
of a petition." Izummi, 22 J&N Dec. at 176. 
The award ceremony which forms the basis of the Petitioner's eligibility claim for this criterion was 
held one month after the filing of the instant petition. The Petitioner provided no evidence showing 
that he functioned in the role of a judge prior to that event or prior to the filing of the petition. 
Without such evidence, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary met the 
requirements of the criterion at the time the petition was filed. ld. 
Since the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary met the plain language of this criterion 
at the time of filing, we withdraw the Director's determination on this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
4 The are awards granted by the 
is one of 19 regional chapters and the are distinct from the 
which corresponds with the 
5 
into the record . 
or 
(accessed July 28, 20 16), a copy of which ·is incorporated 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-T-
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary meets this criterion because, rather than 
being responsible for a "particular piece of equipment or specific method," the Beneficiary is 
"unique in his artistic use of the camera." To satisfy this criterion, a petitioner's contributions must 
be both original and of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). The term 
"original" and the phrase "major significance " are not superfluous and, thus, they have some 
meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3d Cir. 1995) quoted 
in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2d Cir. 2003/ 
The Petitioner submitted letters from individuals who have worked with the Beneficiary, attesting to 
his work in the field. We have reviewed all of the letters submitted as evidence, including those 
which are not mentioned here, and found that they do not demonstrate · that the Petitioner was 
responsible for an original artistic contribution of major significance in his field. For example, 
a director of single cam comedies for described the 
Beneficiary ' s cinematographic work, stating that it "encompasses strategic and innovative use of 
camera angles and lighting that surpasses many in the field." She noted that the Beneficiary was 
also involved in the film in which he "did an excellent job of capturing the immigrant 
experience in the United States." the co-director of 
noted the 
Beneficiary's involvement in short films such as in which his "technical skills and 
knowledge oflighting and camera work was invaluable to the completion of the film." According to 
the Beneficiary's "unique vision and artistry has contributed significantly to the field." 
described the Beneficiary as an "extraordinarily talented cinematographer , editor and 
film producer specializing in public broadcasting and independent films." According to 
the -Beneficiary "has been invaluable to the [Petitioner ' s] success" and his "artistic talents 
and technical skills have earned him international recognition in his field." 
The regulations require that the Petitioner provide evidence of the Beneficiary's "original ... artistic 
contributions of major significance in the field." The authors of all of the letters spoke very highly 
of the Beneficiary, noting his artistic capabilities in framing shots for film-making as well as his use 
of camera angles and lighting. However , none claimed that any of the Beneficiary's artistic 
activities, including his use of the camera and lighting, are original or constituted new techniques 
which have been emulated throughout the industry. Further, none of the authors described any 
explicit influence which the Beneficiary has had on the field of cinematography or film-making , as a 
whole, or point to specific individuals or companies that have adopted his camera or lighting 
techniques. The opinions of the Petitioner's references are not without weight; however, we are 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding eligibility for the benefit sought. 
See Matter ofCaron Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). Thus, the content of references ' 
statements and the basis of their opinion regarding the Petitioner's reputation are important 
considerations. Specifically , USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory affirmations. 1756, Inc. 
v. Att'y Gen. ofthe United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990). 
The Petitioner also provided an evaluation of the Beneficiary ' s work in the field, prepared by 
a professor emeritus at the 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-T-
based his evaluation upon a review of the Beneficiary's curriculum 
vitae and the testimonial letters written on behalf of the Beneficiary. noted that 
the Beneficiary's record displayed "an energetic and entrepreneurial engagement with the field." He 
went on to cite 
the authors of the various testimonial letters, noting that the Beneficiary "has earned 
a prominent level of recognition and professional admiration from his peers and from professionals 
in the field." Further, noted that the Beneficiary "has a broad array of 
experience and achievements that are highly valued by his colleagues, employers, and professional 
award-granting organiza!ions." Finally, concluded his letter by stating that the 
Beneficiary has achieved "a degree of skill and recognition that is significantly above that which is 
ordinarily encountered in this field." However, as stated previously, it is USCIS's responsibility to 
determine andindividual's eligibility for the immigration benefit sought; we cannot delegate that 
responsibility. Caron Int 'I, 19I&N Dec. at 795. 
Since the Petitioner has provided no evidence to demonstrate that the Beneficiary is responsible for 
original artistic contributions of major significance in his field of endeavor, it has not satisfied this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the individual 's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not satisfy this criterion. The plain language of this 
regulation requires evidence of the display of the Beneficiary's work in the field at artistic 
exhibitions or showcases. The Petitioner submitted articles and brochures confirming that films 
upon which the Beneficiary worked were shown at film . festivals: at the 
and at the As a result, the 
Petitioner has satisfied the plain language of this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The Director found that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. Upon review of the record, we agree 
that the Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence of the Beneficiary's critical role for the 
petitiOning organization . the Petitioner 's executive director attests that the Beneficiary 
has performed as a cinematographer for numerous of the Petitioner 's broadcasts, and that the 
Beneficiary's skills are "essential to the success of' the Petitioner's programming. Additionally, the 
Petitioner submitted evidence to show that it is an award winning institution and "the largest public 
university TV station in the country." As a result, the Petitioner has satisfied the plain language of 
this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documents submitted in support of extraordinary ability must show that the individual has achieved 
sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very 
top of his or her field of endeavor. Had the Petitioner provided evidence satisfying at least three 
8 
Matter of C-T-
evidentiary categories, the next step would be a final merits determination that considers all of the 
filings in the context of whether or not the Petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise 
indicating that the Beneficiary is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor," and (2) that the Beneficiary "has sustained national or international acclaim and 
that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), 
(3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 111-9-20 (discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first 
counted and then, if satisfying the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final 
merits determination). Although we need not provide the type of final merits determination 
referenced in Kazarian, a review of the record in the aggregate supports a finding that the Petitioner 
has not established the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. It is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N 
Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofC-T-, ID# 17471 (AAO Aug. 2, 2016) 
9