dismissed EB-1A Case: Director Of Photography

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 19045495 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEP . 02, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a director of photography, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability . 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This 
first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation . 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this 
classification, as required . The matter is now before us on appeal. 1 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence . Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 
(AAO 2010). Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens with extraordinary ability 
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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
1 We initially rejected the Petitioner 's appeal as untimely filed on December 7, 2020. On July 21, 2021, we advised the 
Petitioner that we were withdrawing that rejection and reopening the matter in order to issue a decision on the merits of 
the case. 
(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 implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then 
they must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain 
media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir . 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a director of photography whose credits include...._ ____________ __. 
films produced and released domestically and internationally. The Petitioner indicates his intent to 
continue working as a director of photography for several upcomin~ I projects. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) . The Petitioner has claimed to meet up to eight of the ten criteria, 
summarized below: 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii), Published material in professional or major media; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vii), Display at artistic exhibitions or showcases; 
• (viii), Leading or critical roles for distinguished organizations or establishments; 
• (ix), High salary or other significantly high remuneration 2; and 
• (x), Commercial success in the performing arts. 
2 Although the Petitioner previously claimed he could satisfy the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), he does not 
contest the Director's determination that he did not meet this criterion, nor does he otherwise address this criterion on 
appeal. Accordingly, we consider this issue to be waived and will not further address it. See Matter of R-A-M-, 25 I&N 
Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012) (stating that when a filing party fails to appeal an issue addressed in an adverse decision, 
that issue is waived). 
2 
The Director determined that the Petitioner has displayed his work at artistic exhibitions or showcases 
and therefore satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). We agree, as the record establishes 
that the Petitioner is credited as director of photograph= for several films that were screened at 
~-----!film festivals in the .... l _________ __.J 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Director erred as a matter of fact and misapplied the law 
in evaluating the evidence he provided in support of the remaining claimed criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). He maintains that he meets at least three and up to seven of the initial evidentiary 
criteria and is otherwise eligible for the classification sought. 
Before turning to a discussion of the evidentiary criteria, we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertion 
that he "currently holds an approved 0-1 petition as a person of extraordinary achievement in the 
I I industry" and his argument that his 0-1 nonimmigrant status "is prima 
facie evidence that he has met at least three regulatory criteria and has demonstrated a 'record of 
extraordinary achievement' as per 8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(v)." 
0-1 classification is reserved for nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability or achievement. However, 
the prior approval of an 0-1 nonimmigrant petition does not preclude USCIS from denying a 
subsequent immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard - statute, 
regulations, and case law. In fact, the Petitioner "concedes that the regulations for the 0-1 forl I 
I !productions are not identical to the EB-1 visas of extraordinary ability 
regulations and is not arguing that [his] 0-1 status automatically qualifies for an immigrant visa." We 
emphasize that each nonimmigrant petition filing is a separate proceeding with a separate record and 
a separate burden of proof. In making a determination of statutory eligibility, USCIS is limited to the 
information contained in the individual record of proceeding. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l6)(ii). 
Here, the Petitioner submitted evidence intended to establish his eligibility for classification as an 
immigrant of extraordinary ability, not as a nonimmigrant of extraordinary achievement in thel I ......._ _______ ~I industry. The Director's decision evaluated the evidence in the record to 
determine if it met the requirements for the immigrant classification sought, while also acknowledging 
the prior 0-1 approvals in his decision. Further, in adjudicating an appeal, we are not bound by the 
prior decisions of a service center or district director. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-
2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
We will address the Petitioner's claims with respect to the individual evidentiary criteria below. 
Documentation of the individual's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i) 
The Petitioner has been credited as the director of photoraphy on severall I films that 
received awards and award nominations atl _ film festivals. The Director concluded that 
"festival awards are not considered nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in the field of endeavor because they are limited to associates, participants or members of the 
3 
festivals."3 We agree with the Petitioner that the record does not support the Director's reasoning. The 
evidence demonstrates that the film festivals rely on a competitive selection process, which results in only 
a fraction of entered films being selected for screening. Further, the record does not indicate that these 
festivals place any strict limitations on who may enter their films for potential selection, such as a 
requirement that filmmakers be "associates" or "members" of the festival or any other group or single 
institution. While not every film festival that is billed as a "national" or "international" festival grants 
awards or prizes that would satisfy this criterion, the Director's suggestion that no film festivals award 
qualifying nationally or internationally recognized prizes is incorrect. 
Nevertheless, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated his receipt of nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. The Petitioner served as the director of 
photography for films that received festival awards at~---.========.-~Film Festival, I I I I Film Festival,.__ _____ __. Film Festival, I I Film Festival, I I I JFilm Festival, and th~ I Film Festivall l among other festivals. 
However, he did not establish that he received awards from these festivals. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i) calls for evidence of "the alien's receipt" of prizes or awards, rather than evidence of an 
individual's participation in award-winning projects. 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that "an award granted to a production itself is also an industry 
recognition of the leading team members who produce it." However, the documentation in the record 
does not simply identify award-winning productions. It identifies other individuals, usually directors, as 
the named winners of the awards or prizes. While the Petitioner submitted letters from the producers and 
directors of some of these award-winning films who attest to his critical role in the productions, this 
evidence is not sufficient to establish that he was the recipient of any of these awards. As such, we need 
not evaluate whether those awards were nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence in 
his field. 
The Petitioner also seeks to rely on the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)( 4) which states that a petitioner 
"may submit comparable evidence" to establish eligibility if the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) 
"do not readily apply" to their occupation. He maintains that the awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i) "does not 'readily apply' to [his] 'occupation' as a Director of Photography." He also 
argues that "the entertainment industry considers nominations for national or international awards to be 
equal recognition of acclaim as the awards themselves." Based on these claims, he states that USCIS 
"should accept the comparable evidence of the award nominations together with awards issued to the 
films produced using [his] cinematography." 
The record does not support the Petitioner's assertion that there are no industry awards applicable to the 
occupation of"director of photography." Specifically, he rrovided evidence indicating that several of the 
festivals mentioned above, including but not limited to the IF estival, thel I 
3 In making this observation, the Director cited to USCTS policy stating that "any limitations on competitors" should be 
considered when evaluating this criterion. See 6 USCTS Policy Manual F.2 appendix, http://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
(stating that relevant considerations regarding whether the basis for granting the prizes or awards was excellence in the 
field include, but are not limited to: the criteria used to grant the awards or prizes; the national or international significance 
of the awards or prizes in the field; and the number of awardees or prize recipients, as well as any limitations on competitors 
(noting that "an award limited to competitors from a single institution, for example, may have little national or international 
significance"). 
4 
□Film Festival, and thel I Film Festival! l award "Best Cinematography" prizes 
,..........~·...,ectors of hotography. Further, the Petitioner's own submitted filmography indicates that the 2010 
fil for which he is credited as director of photography, won "Best Cinematography" at the 
.__ ______ __,Film Festival in 2011. The only supporting evidence related to this award is a 
screenshot from the website indicating that the film received prizes for "Best 
Photography" and I ~ at the 2012 edition of the festival. The record does not contain any 
additional evidence related ttj I the .__ ______ __, Film Festival, or the national or 
internationally recognition associated with the festival's awards, nor has the Petitioner specifically 
claimed that the "Best Cinematography" award he received at this festival was a qualifying award. 
Nevertheless, given that he submitted some evidence indicating that he has received an award for "Best 
Cinematography," and that his films have been screened at several festivals that award "Best 
Cinematography" or "Best Photography" prizes, his claim that this criterion does not apply to his 
occupation is not persuasive. 
As noted, the Petitioner also emphasizes that nominations for nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards should be considered comparable evidence under this criterion. For the reasons already 
discussed, the record does not support the Petitioner's claim that this criterion does not readily apply to 
his occupation or otherwise established that comparable evidence should be considered under 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)( 4). He emphasizes that he served as director of photography forl I which was 
nominated for, but did not win, the prestigiou~ lprize at the 20051 I Film Festival. The 
record reflects that this award is given to the director of the winning film. The Petitioner cannot establish 
his eligibility under this criterion based on evidence that he contributed to a film that earned an award 
nomination for another individual as this does not constitute evidence of his receipt of a nationally or 
internationally recognized award. While his contribution to a film that received al I Film Festival 
award nomination is noteworthy and would be considered in a final merits determination, it cannot serve 
as evidence that the Petitioner satisfies this criterion. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established his receipt of nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in his field. 
Documentation of the individual's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
The Petitioner asserts that he satisfies this criterion based on his membership in the Belgian Society of 
Cinematographers (SBC). To satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must show that membership in this 
association is based on individual members being judged by recognized national or international 
experts as having attained outstanding achievements in the field. In support of his claim, he initially 
submitted a letter from SBC co-presiden~ I who states that the society's membership is "a 
highly select group" that includes "several of the most influential professionals." He further states that 
membership is achieved "only through invitation," that it is "a great honor," and that the Petitioner's 
membership in the SBC "was granted on account of his superior credentials and accomplishments in the 
field of Cinematography." 
5 
This letter was accompanied by a screenshot of the SBC website (www.sbcine.be) which provides the 
society's mission statement and lists the current board of governors but does not identify the membership 
requirements or the SBC's procedures for admitting new members. The provided screenshot indicates 
that the SBC's bylaws are available on the website, but the Petitioner did not provide a copy of this 
document.4 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director advised the Petitioner that additional documentation, such 
as the relevant sections of the SBC constitution or bylaws, would be needed to establish the SBC's 
membership criteria and requirements and to demonstrate that the individuals responsible for admitting 
new members are recognized as national or international experts in the field. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a second letter from I la letter from SBC 
membe and a screenshot of~ I 2019 article published on the SBC website titled D 
.__ _____ ---,, __ ....._w.;.;..:;:h:::..ic:..::h::....:::,includes a photograph of the Petitioner, with a summary of his past and 
upcoming work.'------~ states: 
[Members] achieve membership through invitation only based on their achievements in 
cinematography. All SBC members conduct important work in the profession of 
cinematography and enjoy a high level of distinction in the field. To be admitted for SBC 
membership, specifically, a candidate must be sponsored by two existing members of the 
Society. The candidate submits a written statement indicating why they would like to 
join. Candidates are then reviewed by the SBC commission which meets once a year to 
vote on new members to join. New members are accepted only if they are considered to 
have outstanding achievements and receive at least two thirds of the vote in accordance 
with the SBC bylaws. 
In his letterJ I states that he personally "nominated and ushered" the Petitioner into the SBC 
"[ d]ue to his outstanding achievements." He further explains that "SBC members are required to have 
served as director of photography on distinguished films that gained recognition and distinction in the 
industry" and that this "level of achievement is reached by all SBC members." 
In determining that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he meets this criterion, the Director noted that 
the submitted information from the SBC website "did not reveal any detail regarding the organization's 
requirements" for membership, such as the association's bylaws or constitution. The Director further 
observed that "[n]o information established that the individuals who review prospective members' 
applications are recognized as national or international experts." 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Director failed to review the letters provided by D I landl I The Petitioner further asserts that "the plain language of the 'membership' 
criterion contains no requirement that an associations' constitution alone satisfy the criterion" and that 
there is "no existing requirement that an association's constitution be available on its website in order to 
satisfy this criterion." He emphasizes that petitioners "should be afforded an opportunity to use any 
relevant and credible evidence to make their case." 
4 Specifically, the provided screenshot of the SBC website shows that the site provides links to downloadable PDF versions 
of the association's statute or bylaws in the French and Dutch languages. 
6 
We agree with the Petitioner's assertion that the Director should have addressed the letters from D 
I ~nd I lin evaluating this criterion. However, we conclude that their letters alone 
do not establish that the Petitioner's membership in the SBC meets all elements of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii).I ~ second letter indicates that there is a "commission" within the SBC 
that reviews and votes on prospective members. He does not elaborate on the "commission" or the 
process it undertakes to admit new members, nor does he identify those who vote on prospective members 
~nized national or international experts in the field. The Petitioner submitted evidence thatD 
L___J who has director of photography credits on several major motion pictures, is an internationally 
recognized expert in the field, but the fact that he nominated the Petitioner for SBC membership does not 
lead to a conclusion that the commission that reviews and judges the credentials or achievements of SBC 
prospective members is solely comprised of such experts. 
~--~--~I also states that "new members are accepted only if they are considered to have 
outstanding achievements and receive at least two-thirds of the vote in accordance with the SBC's 
bylaws." I t letter does not, however, identify the section of the bylaws where membership 
requirements are stated, elaborate on how the association defines "outstanding achievement," or 
otherwise address the membership requirements stated in the bylaws that he references. As he does not 
directly quote specific sections of the SBC bylaws, it is unclear whether they use the phrase "outstanding 
achievement" or comparable language, and whether they further define or list criteria identifying what 
the association deems to be qualifying achievement(s). 
The Petitioner maintains that "there is no existing requirement that an association's constitution be 
available on its website in order to satisfy the criterion." As noted above, the screenshot provided from 
the SBC website indicates that the bylaws or statute of the association are publicly available on its website, 
and the Petitioner has had multiple opportunities to submit them for the record. Nevertheless, we 
acknowledge that there is no explicit requirement that a petitioner submit an association's statute, bylaws, 
or constitution as evidence in support of this criterion, and we have considered the alternate evidence that 
the Petitioner submitted. We conclude that the submitted letters do not address the SBC's membership 
criteria and requirements with the necessary specificity, and therefore do not provide sufficient probative 
details to meet the Petitioner's burden of proof 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the individual's work in the field.for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessa,y translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
Evidence of published material in professional or major trade publications or in other major media 
publications about the person should establish that the circulation ( online or in print) is high compared 
to other circulation statistics and show who the intended audience is, as well as the title, date, and 
author of the material. 5 
5 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F(2) appendix. 
7 
The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted copies of several published articles but 
concluded that none of the published material satisfied all requirements stated in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that four of the previously submitted articles meet 
this criterion and contends that the Director made several errors in evaluating this evidence. 
The Petitioner submitted two articles which feature him and his work as a cinematographer. One of these 
articles, titled.__ ____________ ____, was published by the online magazine VoyageLA. 
The Petitioner submitted information from the magazine's website stating that its "mission is to build a 
platform that fosters collaboration and support for small businesses, independent artists, entrepreneurs, 
local institutions and those that make our city interesting." Based on this limited information regarding 
the intended audience of VoyageLA, it cannot be deemed a professional or trade publication. The 
Petitioner submitted data from HypeStat indicating that voyagela.com receives over 7,000 visitors daily 
and has an Alexa traffic rank of 152,753. He also provided a data from Similar Web which indicates that 
VoyageLA has a global rank of 227,513 and a country rank of 62,138. The Petitioner has not explained 
how this evidence supports a determination that VoyageLA qualifies, in the alternative, as "major media" 
by having a high circulation or distribution relative to other online publications. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner did not establish that the article published by VoyageLA satisfies this criterion. 
The Petitioner also claims eligibility based on an article that he claims was published in Kodak Lens 
Magazine in 2007. The submitted article is accompanied by an English translation and is about the 
Petitioner and his work as a director of photography. However, the submitted copy of the article does not 
identify the date of publication and the title of the magazine that published it, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(iii). Moreover, the article is not accompanied by any supporting information regarding 
Kodak Lens Magazine, its intended audience, or its circulation or distribution figures relative to other 
magazines. The supporting documentation consists of two articles that discuss Kodak and its standing in 
the photography industry over time; the articles do not mention Kodak Lens Magazine. For these reasons, 
this article does not satisfy all elements of the criterion. 
The two remaining articles that the Petitioner references on appeal were published by The Hollywood 
Reporter and The Washington Post. The Petitioner provided evidence to establish that these qualify as 
major media publications, and that the articles include the required title, date, and author of the published 
material. Therefore, we must evaluate whether the articles are "about" the Petitioner and relating to his 
work. 
a
h b·ect of both 2012 articles isl I her relationship with her brother 
, her acting career, and the release of the short film titled! I which feature 
as lead actress, co-director, and executive producer. The Hollywood Reporter article, titled 
.....------.------------------' provides biographical information regarding 
and her personal life and relationships, her previous acting credits, and briefly discusses the 
shooting o~ I at the I }designed! I over a two-day period in 
2009. The Petitioner, who served as director of photography for the short film, was quoted in the portions 
of the article that discuss the film's shooting. He briefly comments about shooting a specific scene and 
about makin~ • I appear younger on film, and he speculates about the cost of rentin th 
lfor the production. The Washington Post article, titled '----------,,-------,---.,....---
.__ _________________ __.' is much shorter, covers similar topics as The Holl;,wood 
8 
Reporter article and links to that article. The article mentions that the Petitioner served as the film's 
cinematographer and he is briefly quoted as stating thatl l"did a good job." 
The Director concluded that The Hollywood Reporter article is not about the Petitioner and did not address 
The Washington Post article, which, as noted above, is similar in its focus and content. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that "the Service's regulations and relevant case law do not mandate that 
the entire focus of articles must be on the [petitioner]." Citing to Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440 (N.D. 
Ill. 1995) and Racin e v. INS, 1995 WL 153319 (N.D. Ill. 1995), the Petitioner maintains that he need 
only establish that "there is published material about him" and submit articles that "demonstrate his 
work within the field." The cited decisions address the specific issue of whether published materials 
about a petitioner must demonstrate that they are "one of the best" the field, at the "top of the field," 
or a "star" in the field. There is nothing in Muni or Racine to suggest that the district court determined 
that any article that mentions a person's name and their field of work should automatically be deemed to 
be "about" that person, regardless of the context or the remaining content of that article. 6 While the 
Petitioner's name is mentioned in The Hollywood Report er article and he is quoted in those portions 
of the article that mentiow lwe agree with the Director 's determination that the article 
is not about him, nor is the similar article that appeared in The Washington Post. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown that any of the submitted articles meet all 
regulatory requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Evidence of the individual 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
To satisfy this criterion, petitioners must establish that not only have they made original contributions, 
but also that those contributions have been of major significance in the field. For example, a petitioner 
may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the field, have remarkably 
impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major significance. 
The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted letters of support from experts in his field 
which are highly complimentary of his work and professional accomplishments . However, the 
Director determined that the testimonial evidence did not establish that he has made original 
contributions of major significance in the field. He included quotes from several letters and 
emphasized that while they discuss the Petitioner's artistic vision and technical knowledge as applied 
to specific productions , the letters lacked specificity as to how the Petitioner 's work has impacted the 
field or how his techniques have been widely used or accepted within the field such as, for example, 
evidence that other directors of photography have adopted his camera or lighting techniques. The 
6 With respect to this criterion, the Court in Muni stated: 
Under the INS' own regulations, all Muni need show is that there is "[p]ublished material about [him] 
in professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to [bis] work in the field for 
which classification is sought." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(b)(3)(iii). The articles Muni submitted, which appeared 
in various newspapers and hockey magazines, clearly fit this requirement ; even the INS admits that some 
of the articles "discuss [Muni's] hitting ability and his record as a defenseman " (Admin.Rec . at 4). 
Id. at 445. 
9 
Director cited case law indicating that users may, in its discretion, consider advisory opinions as 
expert testimony, but that users is ultimately responsible for making the final determination 
regarding eligibility. Matter of Caron Int'!, 19 r&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that "Matter of Caron International is not a blanket permission to 
disregard or dismiss all testimonial evidence because the Director holds a different personal opinion of a 
beneficiary's contributions to the field." He notes that Caron instead "addresses a specific set of facts 
where expert testimony is contradictory or questionable, which may then be dismissed or given less 
weight by the Service. The Petitioner, citing to Matter of Skirball Cultural Center, 25 r&N Dec. 799 
(AAO 2012), states that the testimonial evidence submitted is "uncontroverted" and should be found to 
be "reliable, relevant and probative" absent "specific reasons for questioning the credentials of the experts, 
taking issue with their knowledge, or otherwise finding reason to doubt the veracity of their testimony." 
The Director, however, did not disregard, dismiss, or otherwise fail to consider the submitted expert 
letters. Rather, the decision reflects that he granted some weight to the letters but found them insufficient 
to establish eligibility. It is the Petitioner's burden to both specify his original contributions and to 
document the major significance of those contributions in the field. A petitioner's submission of 
credible letters from reputable individuals in their industry does not automatically lead to a 
determination that this criterion has been satisfied, particularly if the letters do not shed light on the 
specific nature of the original contributions and their impact or influence on the field. Letters of this 
kind can help to explain the nature of the Petitioner's contributions but should be supported with 
corroborating documentary evidence to establish the major significance of those contributions. Further, 
letters that specifically articulate how an individual's contributions are of major significance to the 
field and its impact on subsequent work add value, while those that lack specifics do not add value 
and may not be considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 7 
Upon review, we observe that the individuals who provided letters in support of the petition attest to 
the Petitioner's artistic and technical talents as a cinematographer, list his film credits, highlight the 
critical or commercial success of certain films, and contain assertions that he is well known, highly 
regarded, and in demand throughout the industry. We have no reason to question the credentials of 
the industry experts who provided letters in support of the petition or to doubt the credibility of their 
statements or the sincerity of their praise for the Petitioner's work. However, the letters focus on the 
Petitioner's contributions to specific projects or his overall standing in the field rather than specifically 
articulating how his contributions are of major significance in the field and have impacted subsequent 
work. We address a representative sample of the letters below but have reviewed and considered each 
one. 
Cinematographer! I who worked with the Petitioner on the filml I states that 
his contributions were "critical to the production's success," "elevated the story with his artful 
compositions, his stellar lighting and his fluid camera moves, and "demonstrated working knowledge 
of camera equipment and techniques ... superior to the overwhelming majority of his peers." Director 
and visual effects supervisorl I who has worked with the Petitioner on several commercial 
projects, states that he "possesses the unique talent and skill to make every project ... successful," is 
"well-regarded among his industry peers," is a "true artist who paints the most beautiful images with 
7 See USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F(2) appendix. 
10 
light onto the screen" and "brings out the best in every production and every person that he works 
with." Director! ~who worked with the Petitioner on the feature film~ I 
andlstates that his "artistic vision and expertise" led these films to achieve 
"tremendous success" and praises his "artistic intuition, technical expertise and deep knowledge of 
filmmaking." I I a visual effects artist and supervisor who worked with the 
Petitioner on several films, credits him with being able to "frame and capture shots that most other 
cinematographers are simply incapable of achieving" and emphasizes that the Petitioner has been 
involved in commercially and critically successful projects and that his services are in demand. 
While the letters submitted with the initial filing describe the Petitioner's original contributions to 
specific productions in some detail, they do not comment on how these contributions to individual 
projects were of major significance, such that they had a remarkable influence or impact in the field 
of cinematography. 
The Petitioner provided additional expert testimony in response to the Director's RFE. I I 
who produced! land~------~ stjtes that ~he Petitioner's 
contributions to these two films "were new, original and entirely his own."~---~j asserts that "he 
devised, carried out, captured and presented extraordinary cinematography used in these films, which 
both went on to enjoy major significance in our industry." He describes the Petitioner's work in 
technical detail and notes that the films received significant film festival awards that are "among the 
highest milestones in thel I genre." The Petitioner also maintained that these two films, 
"provoked wides read public commentary in the field." In this re ard, he submitted reviews, articles 
an rankin s from media sources · I ,I D 
~------' andl I 
~---....,........ While these films received recognition from.___ _ _. film festivals and online media 
focused on thel lgenre, this recognition has not been linked to the Petitioner's cinematographic 
contributions to the movies and does not establish how those contributions were of"major significance 
in the field" consistent with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter froml O )who produced and directed thd~-------' 
feature I 11 I credits the Petitioner with delivering "elegant cinematography," 
with managing "all camera and lighting decisions in the production to artfully author new original 
visual imagery," and with creating an atmosphere of I 11 I 
asserts that "[r]eaching the level that [the Petitioner] has in this industry, which amounts to the highest 
level in the field, itself constitutes an original contribution of major significance." Whild I 
asserts that the Petitioner's standing in the field alone represents an original contribution of major 
significance, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) does not indicate that attaining "the highest 
level in the field" is a relevant factor in determining whether an individual has made an original 
contribution of major significance in the field. Rather, a petitioner's overall standing in the field is 
evaluated in a final merits determination.I !praises the Petitioner's artistic and technical work 
onl land his overall success in the filmmaking industry but does not identify how his 
contributions to this film have impacted subsequent work in the field of cinematography. 
In a second letter submitted in response to the RFEJ I states that the Petitioner has used "his 
exceptional camera and lighting skills" to make original contributions to numerous award-winning 
productions, including "several short films that have major significance in the industry." Specifically, 
11 
he hi hli hts the fact that six of the Petitioner's short films "have exhibited and won awards at 
film festivals."! lasserts that "winning awards atl I 
L.;-------...,.._f_e_st-iv_a_l_s__,means your film is then shortlisted for I I, the highest 
recognition that exists in film." He further states that "by contributing essential cinematography to 
films that have been shortlisted for~-----~ [the Petitioner] has performed work in this 
industry that is outstanding, substantial and meaningful." 81 l appears to equate the Petitioner's 
contributions to short films that were potentially eligible foJ I voting with original 
contributions of major significance, but this interpretation of "major significance" does not take into 
account the requirement that the Petitioner demonstrate how his specific contributions have impacted 
or influenced subsequent work in his field. 
Overall, the letters submitted in response to the RFE pointed to media coverage of the Petitioner's 
films, awards or award nominations received by those films, and his overall standing and reputation 
in his field, but do not contain specific, detailed information identifying or explaining the unusual 
influence his work has had in his field. The Petitioner similarly maintains his films have been "widely 
recognized, written about, and discussed, and are plainly evidenced as being considered important and 
impactful in the field" and states that "an individual who is not making influential original 
contributions simply would not be able to gamer such recognition in his field." 
However, we emphasize that evidence related to awards, award nominations, published materials, and 
the critical and commercial success of the Petitioner's work has been considered under the appropriate 
criteria. None of that evidence specifically recognizes the Petitioner for making an original 
contribution of major significance that has impacted or influenced his field, nor does the record 
sufficiently establish a connection between that evidence and the significance of any original 
contributions he has made to the field of cinematography. For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has 
not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the peiforming arts, as shown by box office receipts 
or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x) 
To meet this criterion, the evidence must show that the volume of sales and box office receipts reflect 
a petitioner's commercial successes relative to others involved in similar pursuits in the performing 
arts. 9 At the time of filing, the Petitioner stated that he "has played a critical role as a Director of 
Photography for a slew of commercially successful blockbuster films." He submitted box office 
receipts obtained from the website Box Office Mojo for the following four films: 
8 The Petitioner submitted a co of the 'for the.__ ______ ~ and a copy 
of the.__ ____________ __. This evidence indicates that a film that wins a qualifying award at the listed 
festivals is eligible.__ ______ __.voting. While the six of the Petitioner's short films were selected for screening 
at five of these festivals the record does not establish that any qfthe films received one of the specific awards listed in the 
-----------.-------'' For exampleJ~--,--~Jwas nominated for qualifting awards at and at the 
.__ _________ ~F_i_lm_F_e_st_iv_,al but did not win either award. The filml~ ___ j~received an ·.__..--------t 
Award" at th Film Festival, but the only qualifying awards listed for this festival are.__ ___ ~ 
for Best~-~ Short Film and Bes~ I Short Film. 
9 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F(2) appendix. 
12 
• I 1(2013) - The report from Box Office Mojo indicates that the film has achieved 
$6.8 million in gross receipts inl I and $477,341 itj I 1t ranked second in the 
c==]market in its first weekend ofrelease inl I 2013 with over $4 million in sales. 10 
• ~2015)-The report shows total gross receipts of $3.35 million inl I It ranked 
second in the I I market in its first weekend of release with $1.4 million in receipts. 
• I t2007)-The report indicates total gross receipts of$97,785 i1 I and 
it ranked 11th durin its opening weekend in the I I and I _ market with 
27 490 in recei ts i 2007. 
• .__ _________ ____. (2013) - The Box Office Mojo report indicates lifetime gross 
domestic receipts of $122,305 and an "all time domestic rank" of 11,012 in the U.S. market. 
The Director determined that, while the Petitioner submitted some documentation of box office 
receipts, he did not provide sufficient supporting evidence to establish that any of the films on which 
he is credited as a director of photography enjoyed commercial success relative to other films. 11 
On appeal, the Petitioner objects to the Director's determination that the record contained "no 
evidence" demonstrating the relative commercial success of his films, noting that the figures from Box 
Qffice Mojo included weekly rankings for each film m its res ective market. The Petitioner 
emphasizes that "in its opening release weekend----......--.--t2013,I lgrossed 
$4,022,572 making it the #2 highest-grossing film in,__ _ ___.ahead of other major motion picture 
earners inl ~t the same time." He makes a similar claim regarding the filml I which also 
ranked second in thd I market during its opening weekend. 
The Petitioner also submits more completd I and box office data from Box Office 
Mojo for thq 12013 openin weekend o As noted, it ranked second in both 
markets among movies that were i_,__ _______ ___, theatres the same weekend. However, we 
cannot determine based on a single weekend's receipts how the film performed overall relative to 
others in these markets. The evidence indicates that the film's overall gross receipts inl I were 
over $6.8 million. Whil~ I earned over $4 million in its opening weekend, there were 10 
other films ranked in the top 25 that weekend that had alread su assed $6.8 million in recei ts in 
,__ __ ~I For example, movies such ;:i~ ., ., l and all 
had cumulative gross receipts between $25 million and $40 million in th ,__ _ ___. market as o 
.'-----:-:-,-' 
2013. Similarly, six of the movies in the box office's top 10 during the same weekend had 
also already outperformed.__ ____ ___. in terms of gross receipts in that market. This evidence 
illustrates that a single weekend's box office receipts do not reflect a film's overall commercial success 
relative to other films released in the same markets, and the Petitioner has not provided evidence that 
would allow for comparisons of total receipts over a longer period of time. 
10 The Petitioner stated in his cover letter accompanying the initial submission that this film earned over $23.6 million 
domestically and "a total of $80.573.774 worldwide." However, he did not submit any corroborating evidence of the 
film's U.S. or global receipts. 
11 The Director also raised concerns regarding that the evidence from Box Office Mojo do not "show how the foreign 
currency was converted into United States currency." The Petitioner provided sufficient evidence to establish that Box 
Office Mojo is a reliable source of sales figures and rankings and we do not share the Director's concerns regarding the 
reported sales figures. 
13 
The Petitioner has also requested review of previously submitted testimonial evidence which addresses 
the commercial success of his work. s ecifically, the letter from I the producer and director 
ofl I film,......_ _____ _,, states that he and his team "were informed by the studio's 
leading executives tha .__ __ ____,, __ __.,was one of I ts most watched original films of 2018" 
and "was the number one film fo_,__ __ _.ori inal or otherwise, in nearly every single territory around 
the globe" in its initial month of release. also emphasized that the film's viewershi 
surpassed that of two other.__~----- released in the same month_...___----.-_______ __. 
I I and I !starring~---~ Finally, he explains that~-~deems information 
regarding viewership to be proprietary and it is therefore not reported by media sources. 12 
The Petitioner submits additional evidence related tol I and its standing asl I provider 
of streaming film and television content. We observe that the "commercial success" criterion is 
inherently sales based, while I I subscribers pay a flat fee for unlimited streaming, such that 
individual movies do not generate "sales" in the traditional sense. The Petitioner maintains 
nevertheless that "becoming one oti ~ s most watche films in a given year amounts to 
a major commercial success in the performing arts." However,..._ __ ....,...._.., letter, which relates 
general, second-hand information from unidentified sources withi does not provide sufficient 
information regarding the commercial success of relative to that of other streaming 
service movie releases. While the Petitioner emphasizes tha ___ ~does not release this information 
for media reporting, it has not been established this information is otherwise unobtainable for any 
purpose. 
Testimonial evidence in the record indicates thatl ras sold tol lfor $1.8 million, 
but the record does not provide a contract or any context for this figure to establish that it would be 
considered a "commercial success" relative to other content sold for streaming as al I 
For these reasons, even if the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x) allowed for 
the submission of streaming data and rankings or some other measure of "commercial success" in lieu 
of box office receipts, additional evidence would be needed to demonstrate that the Petitioner meets 
this criterion based on the commercial success of1 I 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
B. Summary and Reserved Issue 
In light of the above conclusions, the Petitioner does not meet the initial evidentiary requirement of 
three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Detailed discussion of the remaining claimed criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), which relates to whether the Petitioner has performed in a leading or 
critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation, cannot change 
the outcome of this appeal. Therefore, we reserve this issue. 13 
1~ btated tha~ I has an industry-wide standard that they do not release numbers or ratings with regards to 
how many times a film and/or episode of television on their platform is viewed." 
13 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 
n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
14 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten lesser criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type 
of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a conclusion 
that the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. Here, the Petitioner 
has established that he has worked on some successful film projects and has received recognition for 
his work as a director of photography. But he has not shown that this recognition rises to the required 
level of sustained national or international acclaim, or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed 
work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the 
Petitioner is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
15