dismissed EB-1A Case: Film

MATTER OF B-H-D-B-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV.19,2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a film director and producer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability in the arts. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(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 Nebraska Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner satisfied two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of which 
she must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner offers previously submitted documentation and a briet: contending that she 
meets at least three of the ten criteria. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(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. 
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 
.
Matter of B-H-D-B-
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. USC IS, 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 l&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is currently a student in the United States who has directed and produced movies in 
Brazil. Because she 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 two of the 
initial evidentiary criteria, judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and artistic display under 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she fulfills four additional criteria. 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. 
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 Petitioner contends that her receipt of "Best Documentary" from the 
meets this criterion. In order to satisfy this criterion, a pet1t10ner must 
demonstrate that her prizes or awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in 
2 
.
Matter of B-H-D-B-
the field. 1 At the outset, the Petitioner did not submit certified English language translations for each 
of her foreign language documents. Any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a 
full English language translation. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(3 ). The translator must certify that the 
English language translation is complete and accurate, and that the translator is competent to 
translate from the foreign language into English. Id. The record reflects that both at the initial filing 
and in response to the Director ' s request for evidence that the Petitioner presented a single certificate 
of translation; however she did not establish which documents , if any, to which the certifications 
pertain.2 Because the Petitioner did not offer properly certified English language translations 
identifying the corresponding foreign language documents, we cannot meaningfully determine 
whether the translated material is accurate and thus supports her claims. 
The Petitioner provided an uncertified translation of a certificate purportedly indicating that she 
received the "Award of Best Documentary " from the 
Beyond submitting an uncertified translation of the certificate , the Petitioner did not present any 
supporting evidence documenting her receipt of the award.3 
As to the recognition of the award, the Petitioner argues that the 
supports the festival, and the selects 
the winners in each category. She offers previously submitted and uncertified translations of 
screenshots from Wikipedia regarding and a screenshot announcing the 
second film festival in 2011, and screenshots indicating the winners from the first festival in 2010. 
Further, she presents a screenshot from ancine.gov.br, in English, which states that 
mission is to create equal conditions of competition among economic agents operating in the 
Brazilian audiovisual sector and therefore to stimulate the development of a strong and sustainable 
audiovisual industry." We note that the uncertified English translation from Wikipedia claims that 
"is a non-profit association that encourages its members to see, discuss and reflect on the 
cinema." 
Although the uncertified translations have no probative value, they do not support the Petitioner's 
claims on appeal. The screenshots do not indicate that supports the festival and 
selects the winners. Furthermore , the Petitioner did not establish that the festival awards 
are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. 4 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she satisfies this criterion. 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2. AFM Update ADI 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https: //www .uscis.gov /policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html . 
2 We note that both certifications omit the name(s) of the document(s) . For instance, the certification s state that they 
"certify that the translation of ___ _______ are true and accurate to the best of my abilities ." Further , 
the translator has the same last name as the Petitioner , indicating a familial relationship . 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1 , supra, at 6. 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 6. 
3 
.
Matter of B-H-D-B-
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the .field for which classffication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or.fields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner argues that she fulfills this criterion based on her In addition, 
she claims that a candidate "needs to be invited [from] someone (member /president) that already 
belong[ s ]" and "submit[ s] his/her resume with the work already done for the field (published books, 
published materials, article in[] the field, film exhibited, workshop or any other work that will be 
equivalent to one of these already signed." To satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must show that 
membership in the association is based on being judged by recognized national or international 
experts as having outstanding achievements in the field for which classification is sought. 5 
The Petitioner presents previously submitted uncertified translations of the following documents : a 
diploma from the claiming that she is an "effective member"; 
a letter from president, stating that the Petitioner was elected "ninth chair" in 
and the minutes from meeting indicating her presence. Because she did not provide 
certified translations of the documents, the Petitioner did not demonstrate her membership with 
6 
Moreover, the record contains an uncertified translation of constitution. Specifically, the 
document reflects that the election of effective members require "[ o ]nly Brazilians permanently 
resident in the who have published literary or scientific works of 
recognized value, or who are personalities of great expression in the cultural life of the State." The 
Petitioner, however, did not demonstrate that publishing "works of recognized value" or having 
personalities "of great expression" is consistent with outstanding achievements as required by this 
regulatory criterion. In addition, the Petitioner did not establish that recognized national or 
international experts judge the outstanding achievements of members. 7 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show that she meets this 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 class(fication is sought. 8 C.F.R . 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Although the Director determined that the Petitioner fulfilled this criterion, we disagree. The 
Petitioner must show that she has not only been invited to judge the work of others, but also that she 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 6. 
6 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
7 See USC IS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1 , supra, at 6 (providing an example of admission to membership in the 
National Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associate that requires individuals to be nominated by an academy member, 
and membership is ultimately granted based upon recognition of the individual's distinguished achievements in original 
research) . 
4 
.
Matter of B-H-D-B-
actually participated in the judging of the work of others in the same or allied field of specialization. 8 
The record reflects that the Petitioner provided an uncertified translation of a "Declaration" from the 
of Basic Education claiming that she "composed the judging committee" for the "first 
Edition of the Film Festival of the in 2010. Despite that the Petitioner 
did not present a certified translation 9, the declaration does not show that she judged the film 
festival. Rather, the documentation indicates that she composed the judging committee. The 
Petitioner did not show that she actually participated in the judging of the festival or that she 
"composed" or organized the jury members on the committee. Without certified translations and 
supporting evidence clarifying her role, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she participated as a 
judge at the film festival. 10 
Furthermore, the record contains an uncertified translation of a certificate acknowledging the 
Petitioner's "participation as jury in beauty contest " However, the Petitioner did 
not demonstrate that judging a beauty contest is in the same or allied field of film producing and 
directing. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that she satisfies this criterion. Accordingly, we 
withdraw the Director's finding for this issue. 
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). 
The Petitioner contends that she "ministered" a workshop in creating 
Moreover, she claims that helped professionals to create new content and new 
adventures." In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) , a petitioner must 
establish that not only has she made original contributions but that they have been of major 
significance in the field. For example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been 
widely implemented throughout the field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have 
otherwise risen to a level of major significance . 
The Petitioner offers the previously submitted uncertified translation of a "Certificate of Merit" from 
"[f]or the realization of the 1 audiovisual production workshop." In addition, the record 
contains an uncertified translation of a contract between the Regional 
Administration in and the Petitioner to conduct a workshop at 
Notwithstanding the uncertified translations 11 , while the documentation indicates that the Petitioner 
conducted a workshop, she did not demonstrate how it significantly impacted or influenced the field 
in a major way. The Petitioner did not show, for example, that the overall field considers the 
8 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005 .1, supra, at 8. 
9 See 8 C.F .R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
IO Id. 
'' See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
5 
.
Matter of B-H-D-B-
workshop to be of major significance. 12 Moreover, the Petitioner did not explain how the 
documentation supports her assertions relating to The evidence makes no mention of 
nor does it reflect how helped professionals to create new content and new 
adventures. Further, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that has been majorly significant in 
the field. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that she meets this criterion. 
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). 
Although the Director determined that the Petitioner fulfilled this criterion, we disagree. In order to 
meet this criterion, the Petitioner must show that the venues where her work was displayed were 
artistic exhibitions or showcases. 13 The record contains an uncertified translation of a declaration 
from stating that the Petitioner participated as a producer for the movie, 
which was "exhibited in the Cinema at Moreover, the record reflects an 
uncertified translation of a declaration from indicating that her movie, 
"was exhibited for more than 100 people." Because the Petitioner did not provide 
certified translations, she did not establish that the material is accurate and supports her claims. 14 
Further, __ declaration does not identify the venue where she displayed her movie. 
Moreover, the record contains an uncertified translation for a "Certificate of Registration or 
Endorsement" by the for the unpublished works , 
The Petitioner submitted a "Documentation of Registration" from the 
for the screenplay, The document, however, does not demonstrate that her 
work was displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases. Similarly, the Petitioner provided copies of 
her films and shows, such as , and Although the evidence 
reflects evidence of her work, it does not show that it was displayed at artistic venues. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that she satisfies this criterion, and we withdraw 
the Director's findings for this issue. 
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 as an actress in a 
commercial for __ and a soap opera for ____ As it relates to a leading role, then 
12 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9; see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 
(upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the 
field as a whole). 
13 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1 , supra, at 9. 
14 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
.
Matter of B-H-D-B-
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. 15 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. 16 
The Petitioner is seeking classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the field of film 
producing and directing rather than as an actress. Regardless, the Petitioner presents previously 
submitted uncertified translations of contracts with to perform one time for three hours 
on a soap opera. 17 In addition, the Petitioner submits a contract with to appear once in a 
commercial. Here, the Petitioner did not show how her role as an actress in limited appearances 
reflect her leading or critical role for and overall. She did not, for example, 
provide evidence establishing how her roles on the soap opera and in the commercial are leading to 
the businesses. Moreover, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how her roles contributed in a way that 
is of significant importance to the outcome of the organizations or establishments' activities. 18 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show that she meets this criterion. 
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 of her artistic accomplishments is indicative 
of the required sustained national or international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of 
acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress . H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990); see also section 203(b )(1 )(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)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
15 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at I 0. 
16 fd. 
17 See 8 C.F.R. § I03.2(b)(3). 
18 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at I 0. 
Matter of B-H-D-B-
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that she qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of B-H-D-B-, ID# 1727261 (AAO Nov. 19, 2018)