dismissed EB-1A Case: Film

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-K-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. II, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a·movie producer, director, and screenwriter, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in the arts. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(I)(A), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(I)(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 the Petitioner had satisfied only one of the initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which she must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that she has satisfied all regulatory requirements 
and qualities for the requested classification. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(I )(A) of the 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 111 the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
Maller of,\4-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 tor satisfying this· classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is a mi\ior, 
intemmionally recognized award). Ahemately, he or she must provide evidence that meets at least three 
of the criteria 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 amot1g the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0) 
(discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011 ). 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." Maller olChawalhe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 201 0). 
fl. ANAL YSlS 
The Petitioner. a director. producer, and screenwriter who focuses primarily on documentary 
features, indicates that she intends to continue the same work in the United States. On appeaL she 
maintains that she won a major, internationally recognized award under 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3) and 
alternatively satisiies at least three of the ten alternative criteria. We have reviewed all of the 
evidence in the record, and determined that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner has a 
one-time achievement or has presented documents satisfying at least three of the len criteria listed 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
A. One-Time Achievement 
Given Congress' intent to restrict this category to "that small percentage of individuals who have 
risen to the very top of their tield of endeavor," the regulation permitting eligibility based on a one­
time achievement must be interpreted very narrowly, with only a small handful of awards qualifying 
as major, internationally recognized awards. See H.R. Rep. I 01-723, 59 (Sept. .19, 1990), reprin!ed 
in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 1990 WL 200418 at *6739. The House Report specifically cited to the 
Nobel Prize as an example of a one-time achievement; other examples which enjoy major, 
international recognition may include the Pulitzer Prize, the Academy Award, and an Olympic 
medal. The regulation is consistent with this legislative history, stating that a one-time achievement 
must be a major, internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The selection of Nobel 
Laureates, the example Congress provided, is reported in the top media internationally regardless of 
2 
.
:\.fatter of M-K-
the nationality of the awardees, reflects a familiar name to the public at large, and includes a large 
cash prize. While an internationally recognized award could conceivably constitute a one-time 
achievement without meeting all of those clements, Congress' example clearly shows that the award 
must be global in scope and internationally recognized in the field as one of the top awards. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that her receipt of a "Ccrtiticate of Honor" from the 
m 20 15 constjtutes her one-time achievement. Her submitted 
documentation indicates that she received this certificate for her work as producer and director of the 
documentary film 
According to the record, the is the business counterpart to the 
and is one of the largest tilm markets in the \Vorld. It essentially offers a networking opportunity for 
film professionals while simultaneously providing registrants the benefits of a festival badge. 1 The 
record does not explain the nature of the Petitioner's Certificate of Honor, nor does it establish that 
this certificate constitutes a major, internationally recognized award. While the Petitioner submits 
evidence demonstrating that the "operates in tandem" with the well-known 
the festival and its awards appear completely distinct from the 
It is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361: klciller o{Skirball Cui!Ural Crr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). As 
such, she must offer sufficient evidence demonstrating that her 2015 Certificate of Honor qualifies 
as "a major, international[ly] recognized award." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The Petitioner has 
submitted no documentation, such as media reports or other credible evidence, discussing these 
certificates or confirming that they are major awards that enjoy international recognition. She has 
not presented, for example, evidence that certificates of honor such as hers arc widely reported by 
international media comparable to other major, globally recognized awards such as an Academy 
Award or an Olympic medal. Without corroborating evidence verifying the certificate's status and 
international recognition, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her Certificate of Honor qualifies 
as a one-time achievement 
B. Evidentiary Critcria 2 
As the Petitioner has not established her receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, to 
meet the initial evidence requirements, she must satisfy at least three of the ten criteria listed under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). She has not made such a showing. 
In denying the Petition, the Director found that that the Petitioner met the artistic display criterion 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she also meets the lesser 
avvards criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the published material criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the judging criterion under 8 C. F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3 )(iv), and the original 
·See http: / /w~vw . (last visited Mar. 7. 201 S). 
2 
We will discuss those criteria the Petitioner has raised and for which the record contains relevant evidence. 
3 
.
,Hatter ofM-K-
con tributions criter ion und er 8 C.F .R. ~ 204.5( h)(3)(i ii)(v). 3 We have reviewed all of the ev idence in 
the reco rd of proceedings, and it doe s not support a finding that the Petitioner meets th e plain 
lang uage requirements or at least three criteria. 
Docume nwtion of the alien 's receip l l?f"lesser national(v or internalionally recognized prizes or 
avmrdsfo r exceflence in !hefie !d qf'endeavor. 8 C.F:R. § 204 .5(h )(3)( i). 
T he Peti tioner contends that she rece ived nume rous awards for her work in the film ind ustry , a 
numbe r for which she claim s she doe s not have documentation. She sub mit s evidence that she won 
the " Prize of the Organi zer" for her tilm during the 
m as well as ev idenc e demon strating her rece ipt of a Certific ate of 
Apprecia tion from for h er "va luable contributi on" in 2007. However . the 
record lacks evidence explaining the natu re of these awards or detailing their com petitive selection 
prqces s, and we thus cannot determine wheth er she received these awards for exce llence in her field 
of endeavor. Moreover , the Petitioner has not submitted evidence demonstra1ing that such awards 
receive national or international recognition in the field of cinematography. 
She also subm its documentation that her tilrn received <:m award for Best 
Intematio nal Social Document ary from the 
in 2009. While the record contains a letter· from co ntirming that this 
a\:vard was given to the Pet itioner for her outstandi ng achievement, the record does not demonstrate 
that this award has garner ed national or intern ationat recognition in the t!etd cinemat ogra phy. 
Regarding t he Petitioner's receipt of a Ce rti licate of Honor from the we note t hat 
the documentation submitt ed indicates that such a cert ificate is a "spec ial gratitude award.'o She 
provided what appear s to be a summa ry of the ·website which states that "the 
Festival selects the most successf ul projec ts artist ically" and that "[t]h ese project s are selected as 
they get a lot of inter est by a great number of producers and distributors." As noted previo usly, the 
Peti tioner m ust demonstrate tha t her prizes or awar ds are nationally or intern ationally recogn ized for 
exce llence in the field. Here , the record does not supp ort a finding that certifica tes of honor 
presenred as a special gratitud e awar d by the receive nation al or international 
recognit ion for excellence in the field 
Finally, she offers document ation that she received the " Best Hum an Artist" award Cram the 
in 2015. The record contains a letter from whi ch 
explains that it is a non-pr o fit, non-political assoc iation, and which states that it awarded the Best 
Human Artist awa rd to the .Petition er in recognit ion of her cinematography and her promotion of 
hwnan rights and freedom. It states tha t ·it orga nizes an awa rds and ap preciation ceremony every 
four years to honor art ists that have addressed the promot ion o f hum an values and hum an right s in 
their work . Thus, while this award honor s the Petitioner for her contri butions to the promotion of 
> In his decision, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet the membership criterion. Sec 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(ii). The record supports his conclusion, and the Petitioner has not challenged this finding on appeal. 
4 
.
Matter oflvf-K-
human rights, it does not on its face constitute an award for excellence in the field of 
cinematography. '\for does the evidence establish that this award is nationally or internationally 
recognized for excellence in the field. For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not 
established that she meets this criterion. 
Published material abou! the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media relating to the alien ·s work in thefieldjor U1hich classt/ication is sough!. Such evidence 
shall include the title. date. and awhor of the material, and anv neces.wrv translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(J)(iii). . . ~ • 
The Petitioner claims eligibility under this criterion based upon the submission of translated articles and 
wcbpages from foreign language newspapers and online publications including 
and 
which discuss her various film achievements. While the articles appear to be about the Petitioner's 
work, the Director detem1ined that she offered insufficient evidence to show that these publications 
quality as major media, professional publications, or major trade publications. We agree. 
The Petitioner has not established the circulation data of any of the above resources to compare with 
the circulation statistics of other newspapers or websites, and she has consequently not established 
that any of the publications from materials submitted are forms of major media. See l'·.foroozi 
v. Napolitano, 905 F.Supp.2d 535, 545 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). Although she cites to website 
on appeal in support ofthe contention that this publication "enjoys a wide-enough readership that it 
can be said to have attained a wide-ranging appeal to all persons," this does not establish that 
is a professional or major trade publication or other form of major media. Simila~ly, the 
Petitioner did not provide evidence establishing ·the foreign language newspapers qualify as 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. 4 
"We note the Petitioner's submiss ion of Wikipedia entries for some ofrhe publications, including As 
correc{ly noted by the Director, there are no assurances about the rei iability of the content from ~Vikipedia, an open. 
user-edited internet site. See Lamilem Badasa v. ;\1ichaei Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (81h Cir. 2008). Online content from 
Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
WIKIPED!A MAKES :-.10 GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open-content 
collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to 
develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone wtth an 
Internet connect ion to alter its concent. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been 
reviewed by people with the expenise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable 
mtonnation . . Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content 
of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion 
does not coJTespond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. 
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_ disclaimer (last visited on Mar. 7, 20 18). Any documentation 
submitted from ~Vikipedia in support of circulation and distribution data therefore carries minimal evidentiary weight. 
.
Mall er o(/vt-K-
The Petitioner also submitted translated transcripts of interviews that were ava ilable o n YouTube .5 The 
interviews were conducted in Albanin and the record contains a "Cert iticate of Tran script" for eac h that 
attes ts to the accuracy o r the transcription, but not the translation . Evidence in a toreign language must 
be accompa nied by a full Engli sh l anguage translation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The translator must 
cctiify that the English languag e trans lation is complete and accu rate, and that the translator is 
competent to translate from the !'oreign language into English. !d. Because t he Petitioner did not 
submit a properly ccrtiticd Engl ish langu age tran slation of the document , we cannot meaning fu11y 
detem1ine whether the tran s late~ material is accura te a nd thus supports her claim s. Furthennore, as 
\Vith the print journals, the recor d lacks evi dence establishing that the source of the interviews qua li fy as 
major med ia. 
In summary, the evidence provided does not show that the ne\vspape r or online articles appea red in 
professional or major trad e public ations·, or other majo·r m edia . As such , we find that the Petiti oner 
has not met thi s criterion . 
. Evidence <!{the alien's participation. either individu al!y or on a panel . as a judge of the work 
<~l othen in rhe .•wme or an allied fie ld of :,pecificarion for which c1ass1jication is so ught. 
8 C.F.R. * 204.5 (h)(3)( iv). 
The Petitioner claims that she se rved as a pane list for the 2013 In support 
of this asser tion, s he submi ts two lett ers from who states that she inv ited the Petitioner 
to serve on the jury of thi s ICstival becau se "she is a very professi ona l art ist." She also submitted a 
phot ograph of her seated at a table , w hich is captioned with and 
'\vww.facebook.co m ' and photograph s of her standing in front of a banner that reads 
The evidence the Petit ioner submit s reflecting her se lection as a judge for the 20 13 
falls short of quali fying under this criterion . First , both lett ers state that she was "i nvited " to 
serve as a paneli st. The evidence , however , must show the Petition er part icipated as a judge ; not that 
she was merely se lecte d or invited to participate. The photo graph s su bm itted likewise do not 
es tablish that she served in the c laim ed capacity as a panelis t, and we note that both photographs 
contain unexplained references (i.e.: a nd ' that do not appear ro relate to the 2013 
finally , even if it was established that she served as a paneli st (or on the 
jury , as s tated in the second letter ), her role in thi s capacity is uncl ear as the record contains no 
evidence demon st rating that she direc tly judg ed the work of others in the same or an a llied field. For 
these reaso ns , the Petit ioner has not met the req uiremen ts of this criterion. 
5 www.youtube.com 
6 
.
kfliller (if M-K-
Evidence of the alien's orighwl. scientific. scholar(v:. arfWlc. arhlelic. or business-relared 
contdbwions of major sign!ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner claims that she founded a film festival held annually in New 
• I 
York City that displays films from producers of Albanian descent. In response to the RFE, she 
argues that this constitutes a "unique" contribution of major significance to the field of 
cincma10graphy, and asserts that "no other Albanian artist in Kosovo, Albania or else'.-vhere has 
established a tilm festival abroad.'' The Petitioner, however, does not demonstrate what effect the 
has had on the field. 
For example, while the record contains transcripts of interviews appearing on youtube.com where 
the Petitioner discusses the festival, there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the 
is widely viewed by members of the cinematography field as an original 
contribution or major significance. Likewise, the record contains no evidence that critics, 
performers, or audiences consider its creation a contribution of major signiticance. While her 
founding of the festival may in tact be unique and the first of its kind, there is no evidence showing 
that the festival has significantly impacted the field of cinematography as a whole or otherwise 
equates to an original contribution of major significance in the field. 
Although the record contains letters from other artists who commend her creation of the 
these letters fall short of establishing its widespread impact on the field as a whole . For 
example, a letter from a composer and classical pianist, states that the 
'has served as a doorway to jump start careers by encouraging and forging successful paths for 
Albanian filmmakers around the globe." The Petitioner did not provide accompanying evidence to 
corroborate the claims and this letter lacks specificity of how the Petitioner's achievements have 
aflected the field. Moreover, while commends her work as a documentary filmmaker, 
there is no evidence that her cinematographic methods are otherwise original or are being used or 
reproduced within her field. While the Petitioner has earned the admiration of her references, there 
is no evidence demonstrating the extent of her intluence on other cinematographers, nor does it show 
that the field has signiticantlv changed as a result of her work. 
I ....... ..,• ...... 
Contributions of major significance connotes that the Petitioner's work has significantly impacted 
the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(\'); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 135-136 
(D.D.C. Dec. 16, 2013). As discussed above, the Petitioner has not shown that her \vork has been of 
major significance in the field. For these reasons, she has not met this criterion.' 
Evidence qf the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibirions or showcases. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
Under this criterion, the Petitioner must establish that her work was on display, and that the venues 
were artistic exhibitions or showcases. The Director concluded that the Peti:ioner satisfied this 
criterion. The record supports this finding because it confirms that she has disptayed her films at 
.
Mauer ofM-K-
various film festivals sue h as the and the 
Accordingly. we agree \Vith the Director's determmatlon. 
Evidence that !he alien has pe1/ormed in a leading or crilical rule for organiwlions or 
esiablishmenrs that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner occasionally references the leading or critical role criterion throughout the record: 
claiming that she has played a leading role in cinematography through her creation of the 
and as the president of a movie production company in the United States. 
The record, however, does not describe the duties the Petitioner performed for the organizations in 
her various roles as tounder of the film festival and president of the production company. Absent 
independent supporting evidence, the nature of the Petitioner's role within an organization cannot be 
inferred solely from the job title. The record docs not specify how the Petitioner contributed to these 
organizations in a way that is significant to the organizations' outcome or what role she played in the 
organization's activities. See Visinscoici v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, at 135 (D.D.C. Dec. 16, 20 13). 
The regulation also requires that the organization have a distinguished reputation. The Petitioner 
does not address this prong of the criterion, and the record lacks evidence establishing the reputation 
of the organizations. In light of the above, the Petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that 
meets the plain language requirements ofthis criterion. 
C. Comparable Evidence 
Several of the criteria arc written broadly such that they can readily apply to the greatest number of 
occupations. 56 Fed. Reg. 60897-01, 60898. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) permits the 
submission of comparable evidence if a petitioner is able to demonstrate that the standards at 
8 C.F.R. * 204.S(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to her occupation. [tis the Petitioner's burden to 
explain why the regulatory criteria are not readily applicable to her occupation and how the evidence 
submitted is "comparable" to the objective evidence required at 8 C.F.R. § 204:5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Here, the Petitioner requests consideration of comparable evidence, which includes her receipt of a 
"Woman of the Year" award from the The regulatory language precludes the 
consideration of comparable evidence in this case, however, as there is no indication that eligibility 
tor·visa preference in the her occupation as a movie producer, director, and screenwriter cannot be 
established by at least three of the ten criteria specified by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In 
fact, as indicated in this decision, the Petitiorier mentioned evidence that specifically addressed 
seven of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Where a petitioner is 'simply unable to meet or 
submit sufficient documentary evidence of at least three of these criteria, the plain language of the 
regulation.at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for the submission of comparable evidence. As 
such, the petitioner has not demonstrated that she may rely on comparable evidence. 
8 
Maller rifM-K-
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence that establishes her receipt of a 
one-time achievement or shows that she meets at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need 
not provide the type of linal merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
Nevertheless, alier reviewing the record in the aggregate, we conclude that it does not sufficiently 
demonstrate the Petitioner's sustained national or international acclaim or that his achievements have 
been recognized in the Jicld through extensive documentation. For these reasons. she has not 
established she qualities for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Maller of M-K-, ID# I 084128 (AAO Apr. II, 20 18) 
9