dismissed EB-1A Case: Documentary Filmmaking

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF O-K-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 9, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SER VICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a documentary filmmaker, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability 
in the arts. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(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 Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that although the Petitioner satisfied four of the initial evidentiary criteria, she did 
not show sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrate that she is among the small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief asserting deficiencies in the 
Director's decision and contending that she has sustained the required acclaim and has risen to the 
very top of her field. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants 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 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
Matter o/0-K-
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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she must 
provide documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain media, and 
scholarly articles). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "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." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
11. ANALYSIS 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner met four of the 
initial evidentiary criteria: nationally or internationally recognized awards under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), published material under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), judging under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv), and display of her work at artistic exhibitions under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). On 
appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she also meets the leading or critical role criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not 
support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien'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 Director found that that the Petitioner had demonstrated her eligibility under this criterion. For 
the reasons outlined below, we find that the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient documentary 
2 
.
Matter o/0-K-
evidence showing that she meets the requirements of this criterion. Accordingly, the Director's 
determination on this issue will be withdrawn. 
The Petitioner presented documentation showing that she won a 
in the "Student Media" category for her production 
(2014). The record contains information from website 
explaining that Awards are presented in "three distinct annual cycles": "Professional 
Media," "Independent & Emerging Media," and "Student & Youth Media." On appeal, the Petitioner 
presents an article, entitled that lists 
the eligibility criteria for the 2017 "Student Media" category: "Lead filmmaker(s) must be enrolled 
in an undergraduate or graduate program at the time of the film's completion. Lead filmmaker(s) must 
be at least 18 years of age. No commercial distribution at the time of entry. Film must be created 
while attending program between January 2016 - June 2017." This information and evidence is 
insufficient to show that the Petitioner's in "Student Media" filmmaking 
rises to the level of a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in her field. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted evidence indicating that she received a 
award for at the (2015). The 
record includes an announcement for edition of this festival from FilmFreeway.com, a list of 
entries for the festival at www.cultura.trentino.it, and a 2008 article at www.fides.org 
announcing the festival, but they do not mention the Petitioner's ____ award 
or demonstrate its level of recognition in the field of documentary filmmaking. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner submitted a letter from curator of the 
in New York, stating that the Petitioner "possesses impressive 
achievements, including film recognitions such as the 
Likewise, the record includes a letter from the Petitioner's teacher 
at the asserting that the Petitioner's 
"was a significant accomplishment that our industry highly respects" and that her 
involves "immense competition every year" and "demonstrates a phenomenal eye for artistry 
and an unwavering vision for a masterly finished piece." While and 
mention that the Petitioner received these awards, they do not offer further details regarding her 
specific awards or their level of recognition in the field. Accordingly, their statements and the 
information from the above websites are not sufficient to show that the Petitioner's aforementioned 
awards are nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the field. 
The record shows that the Petitioner was a "Bronze Winner" in the "Documentary Feature" category 
at the 2014 ___________ A description of this film festival from 
the website states: 
There's a total of 41 categories (15 primary and 26 creative) and 7 award levels. Best 
Of Show Winner: Will receive and Official Trophy and a guaranteed spot in our 
screening schedule. Diamond Winning Films and Videos: Will receive 
award certificates and will be guaranteed a spot in our screening schedule. 
All other Winners (Diamond creative categories and all Platinum , Gold, Silver, Bronze 
and Honorable Mentions): Will receive digital award certificates and laurels, will be 
3 
.
Matter o/0-K-
listed on their respective winners page. All independent, underground, big and low 
budget projects of all genres and topics are accepted. 
While the is a competition that screens independent films from multiple nations, the record does 
not contain sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Petitioner's Bronze award constitutes a 
"nationally or internationally recognized" prize or award for excellence in the field. The issue here is 
not the national or international scope of the Petitioner's competitions, but rather whether her specific 
awards are "nationally or internationally recognized" prizes or awards for excellence in the 
documentary filmmaking field. 
The Petitioner asserts that she directed and produced "one episode" of a film about 
Paralympic athletes from six countries. 1 At the received 
awards for "Best Paralympic Film" and "Best Soundmixing." The record includes information from 
this festival listing and as award recipients, but not the 
Petitioner. Regardless, the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the aforementioned awards are 
nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the field of documentary filmmaking. 
The record contains a certificate stating that the Petitioner's film 
"Honorable Mention" at the 2013 
received an 
and information about 
that film festival from its organizers. While contends that earning an "Honorable mention 
at this world renowned festival ... is truly a milestone in any filmmaker' s career," her statement and 
the information from the organizers is not sufficient show that the Petitioner's honorable 
mention rises to the level of a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in 
the field. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided various newspaper articles mentioning that she was "nominated 
for a 2014 __ 'and a" " While the Petitioner provided 
an event program indicating that she competed in the "Region Three Semifinals" of the 
2014), the record does not include evidence from the 
reflecting her receipt of a _ nomination. 2 
Regardless, the Petitioner's evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate that her participation in the 
"Region Three Semifinals" of the __ is a nationally or 
internationally recognize prize or award for excellence in the field. Accordingly, the Petitioner has 
not established that she meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought 
1 The Petitioner states that she filmed scenes in Texas that focused on 
The record indicates that this film was "directed by 
½ [m~ 
, an Americm sledge hockey player. 
, [md] md "produced 
2 Thirty-nine students from 23 U.S. colleges md universities as well as 10 students from foreign universities were selected 
as "finalists" in the competition, but the 
Petitioner was not listed among those finalists. See "20 I 4 
https://vvww. ___ -awardsr-finalists -announced (visited on March 29, 2019, md 
incorporated into the record). 
4 
.
Matter o/0-K-
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Director found that that the Petitioner had demonstrated her eligibility under this criterion. For 
the reasons outlined below, we find that the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient documentary 
evidence showing that she meets the requirements of this criterion. Accordingly, the Director's 
determination on this issue will be withdrawn. 
The Petitioner presented a copy of a page appearing in the New York Times ( 2015) with 
the heading which included several pieces of writing, including one 
entitled ,."3 Below the 
heading, however, a disclaimer states: "This special advertising feature is 
sponsored and produced by and did not involve the reporting or editing 
staff of The New York Times." The Petitioner has not demonstrated that "published material" as 
referenced in the regulation includes this type of promotional material that has not gone through the 
traditional editing and reporting process of the publication. 4 Accordingly, we do not find that this paid 
advertising feature in the New York Times constitutes published material about the Petitioner in major 
media. 
The record includes a 2014 article in NY Blueprint entitled 
' and an 2015 article in Voice of America entitled 
but they are not about the Petitioner. While these articles 
mention the Petitioner and her film, they are about a selection of films at the aforementioned festivals 
and not the Petitioner. This regulatory criterion requires "published material about the alien." Articles 
that are not about her do not meet this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-
00820 at *l, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 2008) (upholding a finding that articles about a show are not about the 
actor). Similarly, the articles the Petitioner presented from Hipster Jew 2013) and 
Filmkommentaren.dk 2014) are about her film ___________ and not the 
Petitioner. 
The Petitioner submitted a screenshot for "audTV's interview with [the Petitioner] at the 2016 
at reflecting "49 views." The record, 
however, does not include a transcript of this interview or identify the required author of the material. 
In addition, the Petitioner offered a 2014 interview of the Petitioner from IndieWire.com 
entitled [the Petitioner] -
She also provided a 2014 article about her at www. .net5 entitled 
3 At the conclusion of this article, it states: "Read the full story at rbth.com. " The record, however, does not include a 
copy of the "full" article from rbth.com. Nor has the Petitioner shown that the Similar Web rankings and "traffic overview" 
she provided for 
rbth.com establish that website is a form of major media. 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to th e Adjudicator 's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update AD JJ-14 7 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/po licymanual/HTML/Po licyManual.html (providing that marketing materials created for the 
purpose of selling a petitioner 's products or promoting his or her services are not generally considered to be published 
material about the petitioner). 
5 This website is run by organizers of an annual documentary film festival in 
5 
.
Matter o/0-K-
The record includes additional articles about the Petitioner 
from Aif.ru 
,Mk.ru 
Saint Petersburg ( 
, City Guide of 
and Futures Centre ( 
As evidence regarding the publications in which the above material appeared, the Petitioner offered 
screenshots from Similar Web regarding rankings and "traffic overview" for each of the 
aforementioned websites. For example, Similar Web reflects that Indie Wire. com has a global rank of 
6,730, a country rank of 2,781, and a category rank of 72. In addition, Mk.ru has a global rank of 
1,123, a country rank of 69, and a category ranking of 37. The Petitioner, however, did not 
demonstrate the significance of these Internet rankings and viewing statistics or explain how such 
information reflects status as major trade publications or other major media. 
Finally, the record does not show that any of the remaining articles submitted for this criterion were 
about the Petitioner and in major media. Based on the foregoing, she has not demonstrated that she 
meets this regulatory 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The record supports the Director's finding that the Petitioner meets this criterion. For example, the 
Petitioner provided evidence indicating that she was a member of the judging panel for the 
(2017) hosted by the Russian program at 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
The Petitioner submitted documentation reflecting that her films were screened at 
, and the 
in New York. As such, the record supports the Director's determination that she fulfills this 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner contends that she satisfies this criterion based on her role for her 
video production company that specializes "in documentary films, videos for non-profit organizations 
and commercials." As founder and sole filmmaker for ___ we find that the Petitioner has 
performed in a leading and critical role for her company. 
The record includes a letter from 
at and 
a script writer for 
stating: 
and an adjunct professor 
.
Matter o/0-K-
I have been professionally involved with [the Petitioner] through for a 
number of years now, writing grants and scripts for 
and These three films in particular are indicative of [the 
Petitioner's] extraordinary ability as a filmmaker, and within the independent film 
industry, have substantially elevated the name and standing of 
While the record shows that the Petitioner has performed in a leading and critical role for 
the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate that her company has a distinguished reputation in 
filmmaking, video production, or commercial advertising. For example, the Petitioner has not shown 
that the submitted published material relating to or its films sets her company apart from 
others in the industry or otherwise reflects its distinguished reputation. Similarly, the record does not 
demonstrate that the stature of the Petitioner's awards, nominations, and film festival screenings are 
such that her company has garnered a distinguished reputation as a result. 6 With regard to the 
Petitioner's awards, they have already been discussed under the regulatory criterion at 8 C .F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i). Further, while the film received various student 
awards and other honors, and was included in the "Online Film Database" of the 
and the DVD collection of the this evidence 
is not sufficient to establish that the film company 
reputation. 7 
is an organization with a distinguished 
In addition, the Petitioner contends that she has performed in a leading or critical role as a film editor 
for a film and media production company. As it relates to a leading role, the 
evidence must establish that a petitioner is or was a leader. A title, with appropriate matching duties, 
can help to establish if a role is or was, in fact, leading. 8 Regarding a critical role, the evidence must 
demonstrate that a petitioner has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome 
of the organization or establishment's activities. It is not the title of a petitioner's role, but rather the 
performance in the role that determines whether the role is or was critical. 9 
The record includes a letter from , director and producer at 
stating that she "hired [the Petitioner] to work as an editor on a documentary film for a gala held by 
the and that this film, entitled "was the most 
popular the had ever created, resulting in a wonderful emotional response from the audience." 
In addition, indicates that she "brought [the Petitioner] onto further projects," including 
as editor of the documentary short film which she asserts "was one of only 57 films selected 
out of 4,400 entries for a World Premiere at the " However, the Petitioner did 
not show how her role as an editor for the aforementioned films reflects her leading or critical role for 
the overall production company. For instance , letter did not contain detailed and 
probative information that specificall y addressed how the Petitione r' s editorial role was leadin g or 
critical for the organization. 10 Moreover, did not explain how the Petitione r' s role was 
6 See users Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10 (defining Merriam -Webster's Dictionary definition of 
"distinguished" as marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence). 
7 For instance, the DVD collection of the identifies the "School of Visual Arts" rather 
than 
8 See users Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
9 Id. 
io Id. 
.
Matter o/0-K-
leading compared to the other crew on the film such as its director and producers, nor did her 
statements indicate that the Petitioner's film editing was of significant importance for 
success or standing in the industry so as to demonstrate a critical role. Furthermore, 
while the record includes information about from its website and evidence 
that was screened at the this documentation is not sufficient to 
demonstrate that _______ has achieved a distinguished reputation. 
Finally, the Petitioner maintains that she has performed in leading or critical roles as director and 
producer of and 
The Petitioner, however, has not identified how her work on these films constitutes leading or critical 
roles for "organizations or establishments," pursuant to the language of the criterion, nor has she 
demonstrated the distinguished reputation of any such entities. 11 For the above reasons, the Petitioner 
has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
B. 0-1 N onimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Petitioner received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USC IS has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant 
visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying 
an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard - statute, regulations, 
and case law. Many Form 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior 
nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); 
IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd v. Sava, 724 
F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, our authority 
over the USCIS service centers, the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petition, is comparable 
to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has 
approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an individual, we are not bound to follow that finding 
in the adjudication of another immigration petition. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 
98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
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 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 finding 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. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard . Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec . 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r. 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance and recognition of her filmmaking projects are indicative of the 
11 With respect to the production company 
reputation of this organization. 
as discussed above, the record does not establish the distinguished 
Matter o/0-K-
required sustained national or international acclaim or that they are 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 has garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and she is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of 
the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that she qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with 
each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, 
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 Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofO-K-, ID# 2647573 (AAO Apr. 9, 2019) 
9