dismissed EB-1A Case: Film

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9978901 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 14, 2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a film director and producer, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
satisfied any of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which she must meet at least three. We dismissed 
her subsequent appeal, concluding that she had not submitted the required initial evidence of either a 
one-time achievement or documented that she meets at least three of the ten criteria.' 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen. On motion, the Petitioner submits additional 
evidence, asserts that she meets four of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which she must meet three, 
and that she has established her eligibility for the classification sought. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the motion to reopen. 
I. LAW 
A. Motion to Reopen 
A motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts. The requirements of a motion to 
reopen are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements 
and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 2 
1 See In Re: 4699024,(AAODec . 20 , 2019) . 
2 As the Petitionernotes onmotion , the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103 .5(a)(l)(iii)(C) specifies the motion filing requirements, 
providing that a petitioner must submit "a statement about whetherornot thevalidityoftheunfavorable decision has been 
or is the subject of any judicial proceeding and, if so, the court , nature, date , and status or result of the proceeding. " The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103 .5(a)(4) requires that "[a] motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be 
dismissed." We note that the record lacks such a statement. 
B. Extraordinary Ability 
Section 203(b )(1) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, aiis, 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 in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The 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 that 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 aiiicles ). 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
In our decision, we determined that the Petitioner satisfied one of the initial evidentiary criterion 
related to scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), of which she must meet three, and 
accordingly dismissed her appeal. On motion, the Petitioner reasserts her eligibility for the 
classification sought and presents new documentation related to the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), (v), and (viii). As we note above, a motion to reopen is based upon documentary 
evidence of new facts. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). For the following reasons, the evidence submitted 
by the Petitioner on motion does not establish her eligibility for the classification sought. Accordingly 
we will dismiss her motion to reopen. 
2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt o_flesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
for this criterion through her recei t of awards for the 
the movies 
The Petitioner initiall asserted eli ibili 
television program 
andl lher receipt of the medal, and a .--~~--~---.------I 
national award from th-,__ ______ _,for the film.__ ____ _. and its "contribution for the 
liberation of Ukraine at the time of anti-people power." On motion, she also addresses the film 
.__~-~---~~---~~-__, to assert that she meets this criterion. 
With respect to.__ ______ __,we acknowledged in our decision that the program received the 
.__ __ __.I award and concluded that the record showed this award to be nationally or internationally 
recognized for excellence in filmmaking. However, we determined that the Petitioner had not shown 
herself to be a reci ientofthis award. We noted that"screenshots froml I attribute the film 
award to 'while an initial letter from.__ ______ _, director o~ I 
'i=========....--~-- stated, 'c=J received this prestigious national award for the project 
2006 .... "' We therefore concluded that "the record indicates that an entity, as 
.__ __ d-to-tl-1e-P-et-it_,ioner, received the award," and identified this entity as eithd lor 
n motion, the Petitioner provides no additional evidence resolving the issue of whether=] 
or~received the award. A petitioner must resolve inconsistencies of record with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Mattera_/ Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 
(BIA 1988). Without additional evidence resolving this inconsistency she has not overcome our 
concerns on motion. 
Instead, on motion she reasserts that she received the I I award and submits unsourced 
photographs. The first photograph is of the award only and does not contain a caption. The second 
hoto a h is of the Petitioner holdin this award and bears the ca tion, 
.__ ____ __.' and states that [The Petitioner] was the director of the TV version of this program on 
the TV channel 1 ~ "4 HoweverJ !asserts in his supplemental letter that"[ o ]wning 
[sic] to [the Petitioner]'s critical role" in this productionOand [the Petitioner] were awarded the 
I I Award I t' As we noted in our original decision, the screen shot from the 
website of the I t award credits onl~ las an award recipient. The documentation 
submitted on motion is therefore inconsistent with the evidence initially presented by the Petitioner to 
establish that she meets this criterion. As we note above, the Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies 
in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 
at 591-92. Withoutevidenceresolvingwhethershe,I lc=J or both she and0received 
this award, the Petitioner has not shown that she meets this criterion. 
In our decision, we found that the Petitioner had not established that the films 
D andl I received awards; accordingly we could not determ.__i_n_e_i_f_s_h_e_a_l_s_o_w_a_s_a_, 
recipient of these films' awards. On motion, the Petitioner offered new evidence demonstrating that 
I leceived the....._ ______ __,at the 2015~------~Film Festival 
3 This a ward is referred to as ,j I' '.......__.......-;,:,:L~ 
4 We note that the evidence on motion indicates that 
......,,.====-~--', in""'the record. 
.__ ___ _.t' is the TV channel on which this program 
appeared. 
3 
.....,_----;::::='!2.l,_:th::.::a:..:t~I ===::!r:..::e.:..ce:..:i:...:..v.:..ed:::.t.::h:.:e1-___ .J:.....::;Best Film Award at thJ l Festival of Film, and 
tha received the International Fih~ I award 
for1=[=======~==r-a-t-th-e-.------r-__ T_h_e_P_e~titioner then reasserts that she received the award for the 
fih-J !because she was its creative roducer that she received the award fore=] as 
its creative producer, and the award fo as its executive 
producer "(together with~----~---- " 
However, the evidence submitted on motion does not support the Petitioner's contention that she 
served as a producer of these films. Re ardin I O I on motion, the Petitioner provides a 
letter of recommendation from a film director, the film's IMDb entry, and a printout 
from Festival Scope about the film. ~-.,.....,....----,-=--states that the Petitioner was the creative producer 
forl I However, she is not identified as such either in the film's IMDb entry or on its 
entry on Festival Scope. Elsewhere in the record, a photocopy of the film's poster identifies the 
producer only asl I and does not list the Petitioner as a co-producer. With respect to 
I I.the Petitioner also provides a document from Festival Scope and its IMDb entry. The former 
attributes I k production to I I and I I and the latter provides no 
information on the film's producers and makes no reference to the Petitioner. For! l the 
Petitioner submits printouts from the film's distribution company and announcements of its film 
screenings at thtj IFilm Festival and thel IFilm Festival. These 
documents do not identify the Petitioner as affiliated with the film; all three identify the film's director 
by name, and no one else. By the preponderance of the evidence, the documentation submitted on 
motion does not support the Petitioner's assertion that she produced these films, and by extension, her 
claim that she satisfies this criterion. 
In our deci~iou we also acknowledged the Petitioner's receipt of an award from thel I 
for the filrni : I and the resulting "contribution for the liberation of Ukraine at the time of 
anti-people power," but found that she had not established that it was nationally or internationally 
recognized for excellence in the field, as required at 8 C.F.R. §. 204.5(h)(3){i). On motion, the 
Petitioner resubmits a co~v of this award, the award's translation, a letter fron{ I Ph.D., 
program head of thel __ I University School of Film and Photography, and the 
aforementioned letter fro I 
.___ _ ____.I speculates that this award "may well be for her efforts to promote a greater understanding of 
her country through film," and that it was the quality of her films that "promoted a freedom message." 
Apart from this statement, he does not explain how an award granted for contributing to Ukraine's 
liberation equates to an award given for excellence in film direction. Further,! I does not discuss 
whether the award was nationally or internationally recognized for such excellence. In his letterO 
I I does assert that the award was given to the Petitioner in "national recognition" of the film, 
but the record lacks evidence, such as media reports or other relevant materials, demonstrating this 
national recognition or showing how this demonstrates the significance of the award in the field of 
filmmaking. 5 For these reasons, the evidence submitted by the Petitioner on motion does not establish 
5 See 6 USC IS Policy Manual F.2(B )(2), Appendix: Extraordinary Ability Petitions - First Step of Reviewing Evidence, 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2 (noting relevant considerations in determining if the 
a ward or prize meets this criterion, among others, are its national or international significance in the field.) 
4 
by the preponderance of the evidence that this award is nationally or internationally recognized for 
excellence in her field. Accordingly it is not sufficient to demonstrate that she meets this criterion. 
We also determined in our decision that the Petitioner's receipt of an award from th~._ ______ _. 
did not satisfy this criterion. On motion, she contests our finding, 
~p_ro_v_i_d-in_g_a_p_h-ot_o_gr-ap_h_o_f-th_e_a_w__.ard, its translation, and the aforementioned letter froml I The 
photograph includes an unsourced caption stating "[i]n May of 2006, [the Petitioner] shot 
I } after which she received ... the I I medal for 
high quality footage." The Petition;r does not provide evidence or documentation from ihec=lO 
officials, or others, corroborating this statement. 
~ __ _.I opines that "[t]he innovations she brought to the program were so significant that theD 
felt it was worthy of a special award" and concludes "rf1his unrual honor SU~ that it was the high 
quality of her filmmaking that led to this award." Here states that the L_J awarded this medal 
because the institution felt the Petitioner's innovations were significant but does not explain how the 
c::J reached this conclusion. USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 17 5 6, Inc. v. 
The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). The Petitioner does 
not provide evidence corroboratina ~ assertion that thec=]awards the medal for excellence 
in filmmaking. Fmiher, the record lacks evidence demonstrating that the medal is nationally or 
internationally recognized in the field, such as documentation establishing its significance of the award 
in that field. 6 Absent this evidence, the Petitioner does not demonstrate on motion that her receipt of 
this award satisfies this criterion. 
For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated on motion that she meets this 
regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of 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). 
Initially, the Petitioner claimed as her ori inal contribution a used to 
create the visual effect ~------------------------------' which she alleged was copied in other productions. We concluded that the record did not establish 
that she made an original contribution and that it was of major significance in the field. See 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). 7 
On motion, the Petitioner reasserts her claim that her film making technique meets this criterion, 
submitting evidence related to her work on a DVD of a concert performed by the Ukrainian musical 
group 1 t Additionally, she asserts that a course on animation-directing that she taught 
at the! I, and a book she authored) I I I constitute original contributions of major 
significance in her field. 
6 See 6 USCIS Policy Manua!F.2(B)(2), Appendix: Extraordinary Ability Petitions- First Step of Reviewing Evidence, 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2. 
7 Id. (providing an example that although work may be "original," this fact alone is not sufficientto establish that the w01k 
is of major significance). 
5 
Regarding the I I concert DVD, the Petitioner provides screenshots of the DVD's 
credits, establishing her involvement in its production and a letter of recommendation froml I I l a Russian songwriter and musician. I lindicates that he worked with the Petitioner 
on other projects, but not with her directly on the 1 I production. However, he claims 
that the "unique technical solution" employed by the Petitioner during this project are original artistic 
contributions of major significance as "after the released [sic] of the DVD-disk, this technical solution 
was used not only by I I' but also by several other bands and directors. I I 
also asserts that "[the Petitioner]'s previous achievements as a director" constitute an original 
contribution of major significance in the field of filmmaking. Letters that specifically articulate how 
the noncitizen' s contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent w01k 
add value. Letters that lack specifics and make broad, unsupported assertions do not add value, and 
are not considered to be probative evidence that may fonn the basis for meeting this criterion. 8c=] 
I ts correspondence does not contain specific examples of how other bands and directors have 
used her work, or how her previous achievements as a director have remarkably impacted the field of 
film direction. Further, Petitioner does not provide evidence corroboratin~ • l's assertions, 
such as letters from television or movie directors or other relevant materials. In the absence of such 
documentation, his letter is not sufficient to establish that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
On motion, the Petitioner also claims that the course on animation direction that she developed and 
tau~t atl I constitutes an original contribution of major significance. She provides a statement 
fro I and a letter of recommendation from] I' a Russian director and producer, in 
support of her argument. The proffered statement frod~--~ confirms that from December 2014 
until July 2015, the Petitioner authored and taught this course "on the basis of her vast personal 
experience as a practitioner-animator." I I notes that course's "uniqueness ... lies in the fact 
that only after [the Petitioner] agreed to teach the course ... was I I able to recruit a group of 
film and television directors" to attend the course. 9 N eitherl I's correspondence nor the 
I I document contain specific examples, and the record lacks other evidence, demonstrating how 
her development and instruction of the course has remarkably impacted the field of film direction and 
production in a manner indicative of major significance. Accordingly, the Petitioner's evidence is 
insufficient to show that this course satisfies this criterion. 
The Petitioner newlr asserts on motion that her boo 
~-------~}"can be considered as a scientific contribution in the field of endeavor." She 
resubmits an article titled~----------------------~----~ 
I , ~ photocopies of the book's front and back covers and binding, and the first page of its first 
chapter, along with its translation. 10 She submits a solicited letter of recommendation frorrJ 
I I a ioumalist and nroducer. I ~rst describes the book as examinin2:I 
I 
8 See 6 USC IS Policy Manual F.2(B )(2), Appendix: Extraordinary Ability Petitions - First Step of Reviewing Evidence, 
~ttps-//www 11scis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2. 
9ls statement is inconsistent with thel I document, which identifies class attendees as "students of the 
~----------~' A petitionermustresolve this inconsistency in the record with independent, objective 
evidence pointina to urberelthe truth lies. Ho, 19 T&N Dec. at 591-92. Here the Petitioner does not provide evidence 
resolvingwhethd~. --~~tudentsorfilmandtelevisiondirectorsattendedhercourse. 
10 We previously reviewed this evidence and determined it established that she met the scholarly articles crite1ion but did 
not address it in the context of original contlibutions. 
6 
~-----~-----____,.,.....' I l"is positive that [the Petitioner J's analysis facilitates 
creative development of post-Soviet audience via better understanding of its cultural heritage" and 
concludes that this book "is paramount for further research in the field of filmmaking." As a result of 
this analysisj I asserts that the Petitioner's book "clearly constitutes an original contribution 
of major significance to the field of filmmaking" (emphasis in original). However, as we note 
above, letters that specifically articulate how the non citizen's contributions are of major significance 
to the field and its impact on subsequent work add value. Letters that lack specifics do not add value 
and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 11 
I I does not provide specific examples demonstrating that the Petitioner's work has facilitated 
the development of its target audience or showing its impact on research in the field of filmmaking, 
and the record lacks evidence corroborating his claims. Without additional evidence demonstrating 
that this book has widely impacted or received widespread recognition in the field of film direction 
and production in a manner reflecting major significance, the Petitioner has not established that she 
meets this criterion through her authorship of this text. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role/or organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
In our dismissal, we found the Petitioner did not establish her leading role forD and she does not 
contest this on motion. We also found that the Petitioner had not established that she served in a 
critical role for this entity. On motion, she reasserts that she has nerformed in a critical role and 
submits the aforementioned statements froml I andl I Both statements discuss 
the Petitioner's production of I I' and~---------~ for 
Euromedia, one o-c==Js customers. I I explains that "her critical role was paramount 
toc=J[sic] success and reputation and to Ukraine" as it "helped thousands of students ... choose the 
best educational institution for their needs." He continues, "[c]lear evidence of [the Petitioner J's 
critical role in our company is her leadership in our most complex a [sic] prestigious projects, all of 
which resulted in the highest ratings of our broadcasts." (emphasis in original.) HoweverD 
I I does not offer specific examples showing how the Petitioner's work fore=] directly 
resulted in these increased ratings. Fmiher, the Petitioner does not submit corroborative evidence of 
his claims, such as ratings for these programs, or other appropriate documentation . 
.__ ___ _.I similarly asserts that the Petitioner served in a critical role for~as, when the Petitioner 
started "international projects '------------~ and.__ __________ ____. the 
ratings of the TV channels where they were broadcasted in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan went through 
the roof!" Letters from individuals with personal knowledge of the significance of the noncitizen's 
leading or critical role can be particularly helpful as long as the letters contain detailed and probative 
information that specificall addresses how the noncitizen's role for the organization or establishment 
was leading or critical. 12 L---~_.--,tter does not indicate how he arrived at his personal knowledge 
of the Petitioner's critical role for or contain detailed information establishing that her direction 
of these programs resulted in increased television ratings. Moreover, the record does not establish that 
I lwas employed byOor had employed the Petitioner. 13 His letter therefore is not sufficient 
11 See 6 USCIS PolicyManualF.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2. 
12 Id. 
13 See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l ); see also 6 USCJS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), Appendix: Extraordinary Ability Petitions -
7 
to demonstrate that the Petitioner performed in a critical role fore=] Additionally, the Petitioner 
does not submit evidence establishing c=]s distinguished reputation. She therefore has not 
demonstrated that her role witiQ satisfies this criterion. 
On motion, the Petitioner newly asserts that she served in a critical role fo~ las she develo~ 
the previously discussed course a~ referencing both the previously discussed letter frornL_J 
I I, and the document fromc===J'1 4 In his letter) !explains that the Petitioner's 
course was critical tol las it "allowed I I to expand the student base," but does not 
provide specific examples showing how it did so. As we note above, letters from individuals with 
personal knowledge of the significance of the noncitizen's leading or critical role can be particularly 
helpful as long as the letters contain detailed and probative infonnation that specifically addresses how 
the non citizen's role for the organization or establishment was leading or critical. 15 Here I I 
does not indicate how he has personal knowledge of the Petitioner's rol~at Further, his 
letter lacks detailed information demonstrating how her role was critical to d the Petitioner 
does not submit evidence con-oboratinghis assertion that her course increase 's student base. 
Therefore I Is letter is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
In addition, the record lacks evidence establishin~ [' s distinguished reputation. 16 Accordingly, 
this evidence is insufficient to establish that the Petitioner served in a critical role for an organization 
with a distinguished reputation. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner does not submit documentary evidence sufficient to 
overcome our original finding that she did not satisfy at least three of the evidentiary criteria. 
Therefore, she has not overcome the grounds underlying our previous decision or demonstrated 
eligibility for this classification. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
First Step ofReviewingEvidence, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2 (noting that evidence 
of experience "shall" consistofletters from employers.) 
14 As discussed above, the record is sufficient to establish that thePetitionertaught this course. 
15 See 6 USCIS Policy Manua!F.2(8)(2), Appendix: Extraordinary Ability Petitions- First Step of Reviewing Evidence, 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2 (noting that evidence of experience "shall" consist of 
letters from employers.) 
16 Id., (noting that theorganizationorestablishmentmust be recognized as having a distingnished reputation.) 
8