dismissed EB-1A Case: Film

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-R-A-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 8, 2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a film director and screenwriter, 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, Nebraska Service Center, denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and a 
brief arguing that he meets at least three criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
The Petitioner may demonstrate his extraordinary ability through sustained national or international 
acclaim and achievements that have been recognized in his field through extensive documentation. 
Specifically, section 203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Act states: 
Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if-
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
Matter of R-R-A-
(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 his or her 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 he or she 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). 
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.O. Wash. 2011), affd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter (?fChawathe, 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 U.S. 
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"). Accordingly, where a 
petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner currently works as a film director and screenwriter and he has expressed his intent to 
continue that work in the United States. As the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he 
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). In denying the petition, the Director found that 
the Petitioner met the lesser awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and the judging criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iy). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets the published material 
criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the contributions of major significance criterion under 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the high salary or remuneration criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), 
and the commercial success criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 1 The Petitioner further argues that 
1 
Although he previously claimed eligibility for the membership criterion under 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(ii), and the 
leading or critical role criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the Petitioner does not contest the decision of the 
Director, offer further arguments, or submit additional evidence for these criteria on appeal, nor does the record support a 
finding that he meets them. Accordingly, we will not address these criteria in this decision, nor will we address criteria 
under which the Petitioner has not claimed eligibility. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-R-A-
he has demonstrated his sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. We have reviewed all of the evidence in the 
record of proceedings, and it does not support a finding that the Petitioner meets the plaih language 
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 concluded that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. We find the record does not 
support the Director's favorable determination related to this criterion for the reasons outlined 
below. 
The Petitioner attested to having received "nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in the field of endeavor," and he provided a list of the pertinent awards accompanied 
by additional information for each one. The Petitioner listed the following awards: the 
2009 from 
the the 
2005 from the 2009. 
the 2008 from and the 2009. 
The Petitioner has not shown that the submitted awards are nationally or internationally recognized. 
Regarding the 2009, the Petitioner offered a copy of the award, a 
letter from a member of the and an article about one of the 
Petitioner's films receiving this award. indicated that the 
of the government chose the Petitioner's film to receive this award. Howe\:er, 
did not specify the manner in which this award has received national or international 
recognition. An award does not necessarily receive national or international recognition solely 
because a national government entity issued the accolade. While the Petitioner submitted an article 
referring to the award with a handwritten date, it is missing the publication's name and the record 
does not include objective circulation figures showing that this coverage is indicative· of national or 
international recognition. 
Next, the Petitioner offered a letter from chairman of the Within this 
letter, Chairman named the Petitioner as the award recipient in 2009 and discussed his 
prominence in the tilm industry in However, the chairman did not describe the national or 
international recognition of the submitted award, nor did the Petitioner offer other evidence of its 
renown. 
The 2008 is documented by a letter certifying the Petitioner received this 
achievement in the category of best screenplay, dialogue for the film titled 
However, neither this letter nor the record establish that this is an award that is recognized at least at 
the national level. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-R-A-
Regarding the 2009, the Petitioner described this as an annually 
issued, nationally recognized award. The evidence consists of a certificate of nomination and the 
award certificate. In this instance, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient supporting evidence to 
establish that this award is recognized beyond the presenting organization. 
The final award submitted was the 2005. A letter from 
information officer for the indicated that this award derived 
from the ' -2005." However, the fact that an award 
originated from a nationwide competition is not sufficient to establish that the award itself garnered 
national or international recognition within the Petitioner's field. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) . specifically requires that the 
Petitioner's prizes or awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor. 
This recognition may be demonstrated , for example , through national or international level media 
, coverage. Unsupported conclusory statements are not sutlicient to demonstrate that a particular 
prize or award is nationally or internationally recognized. Here, while the Petitioner repeated the 
language of the statute or regulations in describing the prestige for his awards, he did not offer 
sufficient corroborating evidence of recognition at the national or the international level. See Fedin 
Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F.Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), af("d, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 
1990);Avyr Associates , Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D .N.Y.). 
Regardless of the assertions within letters or within the Petitioner's statement, the record lacks 
probative evidence demonstrating that the preceding awards were recognized beyond the presenting 
organizations , and that they are commensurate with nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field. Accordingly , the Petitioner has not established that he meets this 
criterion and we hereby withdraw the Director's favorable finding on this issue. 
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 class(fication is sought. 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 Petitioner provided articles from several publications, letters from some of these same 
publications claiming each as a form of major media, and a list he generated indicating the author of 
each article. The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of this 
criterion. On appeal , the Petitioner claims that the previous record established ---pis eligibility. 
The Petitioner offered articles that are about him and are related to his work in the field from four 
publications: and 
However , the translations of the foreign language articles did not contain the author 
of the material and several were missing the date. The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(iii) 
requires both of these elements. The Petitioner attempted to remedy this shortcoming by stating the 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-R-A-
author and date of each article in a separate statement. Statements made without supporting 
documentation are of limited probative value and ;are insufficient to satisfy a petitioner's burden of 
proof. Matter of'Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing l1.fatter oj'Treasure Craft of' 
Cal(fornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Furthermore, in two instances, the Petitioner claimed that a person other than the o~e listed on the 
article authored the material. For example, within the article titled ' 
from the Petitioner indicated this article's author was 
while the photocopy of the article presents the author's name, written in English, as 
The Petitioner presents an August 15, 2016, letter from chairperson of the 
Within this letter, indicates that the standard 
practice in Nepal is for the editor-in-chief or the deputy editor to decide if the author of a journalistic 
piece will appear in the byline. While this may explain why some of the articles did not list an 
author, it does not remedy those in which the Petitioner ofTered a name that conflicts with the name 
in the article. 
In addition, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence that the articles appeared in major 
media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or international 
distribution. The Petitioner submitted a May I 0, 2016, letter from chief 
administrative officer of the Within letter, he named several of 
the publications related to the Petitioner's evidence and ascribed a "National A" or a "National A+" 
grade rating. The Petitioner did not offer probative documentation to establish the exact nature of a 
. grade A or a grade A+ rating. The record lacks evidence that these ratings reflect the national or 
international circulation or distribution of any of the publications, as opposed to referring to the 
quality of the material. Accordingly, we cannot determine that such ratings establish the material on 
record constitutes qualifying examples of major media. On appeal, the Petitioner identifies a website 
printout regarding each publication's classification. The website relates to the 
and discusses the committee makeup and some limited information pertaining to how 
Nepal classifies publications. Missing from this evidence is information to establish the meaning of 
Nepal's classification system noted within May 2016 letter. As a result, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the ratings assigned to the publications indicate that they are major media 
circulated at the national or international level. 
As further evidence pertaining to the issue of major media, the Petitioner submitted letters that either 
derive from an individual who represents the publication in question, or from a former employee of 
the publication. Each letter's author attests to the prestige or the national reach of the publication. 
These letters pertain to the following publications: 
and As the material is in the 
form of a letter from the publication itself rather than published circulation statistics from an official 
or independent source or other publicly available source, it is of limited probative value. We are not 
required to rely on the seif-promotional material of the publisher. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06-
5105 SJO FMOX, 2007 WL 9229758, at *7 (C.D. Cal. July 6, 2007) aff'd, 317 F. App'x 680 (9th 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter ofR-R-A-
Cir. 2009). The Petitioner has not submitted evidence to corroborate the claims within the letters. 
See Sojfici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain 
language requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation. either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the tvork (?f 
others in the same or an alliedfield (?(;.,pec?ficationfhr which classjfication is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner documented his ser\·ice judging the work of others, including his position on the jury 
of the for the "best of' category in 2014. Thus, the Director concluded 
that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion, and the record supports that finding. 
Evidence C?f the alien'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). 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires that the contributions rise to the level of 
major significance in the field as a whole, rather than to a project or an organization. See Visinscaia 
v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 135-136. The phrase "major significance" is not superf1uous and, thus, it 
has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund. L. P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3 rd Cir. 
1995) quoted in APWUv. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2
11
d Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner provided an article relating to his appearance with a 
former to Nepal, and multiple letters from his film industry associates. The 
Director noted the lack of evidence from those in the field outside the Petitioner's home country and 
determined that he did not meet the requirements of this criterion. On appeal, the Petitioner claims 
his work as a screenwriter and director has widely influenced the field of film in Nepal, and he 
points to the previously discussed 2005 from the 
as evidence. The Petitioner also states that he was the sole Nepalese screenwriter and director of a 
documentary titled that included diplomatic officers. The Petitioner further 
emphasized his other documentary work and submits a new letter on appeal from vtce 
president of the 
The Petitioner has not shown that his work on documentaries has been impactful in his field. The 
article that included a former to Nepal was about a recurring exercise event and 
discussed the Petitioner's documentary titled Although this article described 
the Petitioner as a well-known movie writer and director, it did not illustrate the manner in which he 
has impacted or influenced his field through his work. The Petitioner further identities a letter from 
the in which it recognized his work and awarded him the 
of 2005. While this letter recognizes one of the Petitioner's achievements, it 
does not include information about hmv such work has impacted the field. Additionally, the 
regulations contain a separate criterion regarding prizes or awards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). We will 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter C?f R-R-A-
not presume that items relating to the awards criterion are evidence that the Petitioner meets this 
criterion. To hold otherwise would render the regulatory requirement that a Petitioner meet at least 
three separate criteria meaningless. Further, the fact that the Petitioner was the sole Nepalese 
screenwriter and director working on this film does not demonstrate his influence in the field. 
Although the Petitioner provided letters extoling his talent and experience in his field, such praise is 
not necessarily indicative of original artistic contributions of major significance in his field.2 For 
example, the Petitioner provided a letter from 
from a doctoral candidate at the 
attested to the Petitioner's contribution to Nepali films and 
documentaries promoting social justice and human rights. indicated that she met the 
Petitioner while performing her doctoral research and that she appointed him to make a documentary 
regarding the trafficking of women and their reintegration to society. Although she stated the work 
was well received, she did not provide the name of the piece or describe the impact this work had in 
the Petitioner's field. Although asserted that the Petitioner is destined for significant 
accomplishment in the film industry, this criterion requires that he has already had a significant 
impact as of the date he filed the petition. 
Within letter offered on appeal, he asserts the Petitioner is one of the most famous 
writers and directors in Nepal, and that he is the first lifetime member of the 
describes some of the Petitioner's business ventures, but falls short of explaining 
how he has influenced the field. The Petitioner's influence in the field is not readily apparent from 
attestation regarding his fame and membership in an organization. USCIS is not 
required to accept primarily conclusory assertions that are not corroborated by other evidence in the 
record. 1756. Inc. v. Att 'y Gen, 745 F. Supp. 9, 17 (D.D.C. 1990). 
The remaining letters in the record describe work the Petitioner performed with or for the authors. It 
is not enough to be skillful and knowledgeable and to have others attest to those talents. The 
Petitioner must have demonstrably impacted his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v); see also 
Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134. The reference letters briefly discuss his film-related skills and 
activities, but they do not provide specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has significantly 
impacted the field at large or otherwise constitutes original contributions of major significance. 
Solicited letters from colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or specific examples 
of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. 3 Kazarian v. USCJS, 580 F.3d 1030, 
1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). The opinions of expe1is in the 
field are not without weight and have been considered above. USCIS may, in its discretion, use 
letters as advisory opinions submitted as expert testimony. See _Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 
791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final 
1 
While we discuss only a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that our conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [a 
petitioner's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 
F.3d at 1122. 
7 
(b)(6)
Maller of R-R-A-
determination regarding a foreign national's eligibility. !d. The submission of letters from experts 
supporting the petition is not presumptive confirmation of eligibility; USCJS may, as this decision 
has done above, evaluate the content ofthose letters as to whether they support the foreign national's 
eligibility. See id. at 795; see also 1vfatter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that 
expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "facf'). 
As discussed above, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to satisfy the requirements 
of this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other sign{ficantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in thefield. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) . · 
The plain language of this criterion requires a comparison against "others in the field." Average 
salary information for those performing work in a related but distinct occupation with different 
responsibilities is not a proper basis for comparison . The Petitioner must submit documentation of 
the earnings of those in his occupation performing similar work.4 The Petitioner must present 
evidence 'of objective earnings data showing that he has earned a "high salary" or "significantly high 
remuneration" in comparison with those performing similar work during the same time period. See 
Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering professional golfer's 
earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 
1 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforcer-s); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 
440, 444-45 (N.D. HI. 1995) (comparing salary ofNHL defensive player to salary of other NHL 
defensemen). 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner provided letters from those working in the film industry in 
Nepal. The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion as 
the submitted material lacked specificity and did not otfer probative evidence with which to compare 
his remuneration. On appeal, the Petitioner relies on this same documentation, as well as the new 
letter from 
The letters supporting the Petitioner's eligibility under this criterion include the following assertions: 
• 'indicates he paid the Petitioner 80,000 [of an unspecified currency] 
while he would normally pay other writers 40,000 to 50,000. 
• states that he gave the Petitioner a 50 percent partnership in a movie and 
implies that no such offer would have been extended to other film directors. 
4 While we acknowledge that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Racine v. INS , 1995 
WL 153319 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated, "[T]he plain reading of the statute suggests that the 
appropriate field of comparison is not a comparison of Racine 's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of 
play ; but rather, Racine 's ability as a professional hockey player within the NHL. This interpretation is consistent 
with ... the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) , and the discussion set fmth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg . 
60898-99. " 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-R-A-
• asserts that shared a 50 percent partnership with the Petitioner for 
his script writing and directing work and that this represents the first instance in the Nepali 
film industry that ,any producer has offered the amount of 5,000,000 [in an unspecified 
currency]. 
The Petitioner has not provided supporting evidence t~at might corroborate the claims within the 
letters on record. As stated above, statements made without supporting documentation are of limited 
probative value and are not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. See Soffici, 
22 I&N Dec. at 165. The Petitioner did not submit pay stubs or ta'\. records documenting his actual 
salary or other remuneration. Further, the Petitioner did not offer evidence of the salaries for other 
screenwriters and film directors in Nepal. As such, the Petitioner has not submitted the material 
necessary under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
Evidence of commercial successes in the peTiorming arts, as shown by box office receipts or 
record, cassette, compact disk, or videv sales. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner provided an English translation of an article 
pertaining to a film that he directed. The Petitioner indicated that Nepal does not use a system of 
records of box office sales. The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet the 
requirements of this criterion as he had not offered the types of required evidence. The regulation 
does not allow any alternative measure of one's commercial successes other than through "box 
office receipts or .record, cassette, compact disk , or video sales." We agree with the Director that the 
submitted evidence does not meet the plain language of this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As discussed above, the record only satisfies one regulatory criterion. Had the Petitioner submitted 
the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories , the next step would be a final 
merits determination that considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not he has 
demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor," and (2) that the foreign national "has 
sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievement s have been recognized in 
the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian , 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
Although we do not need to provide the type of tina! 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of R-R-A-, ID# 135136 (AAO Feb. 8, 2017) 
9