dismissed EB-1A Case: Film

MATTER OF A-W-M-A-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 15, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a filmmaker 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. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who 
can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and 
whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only one of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner offers previously submitted documentation and a brief, contending that he 
meets at least three criteria 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 A-W-M-A-
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 it is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily 
apply to a beneficiary's occupation. 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a filmmaker who has produced movies in the United States. Because he has not 
indicated or established that he has 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 only one of the initial evidentiary criteria, 
published material under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The record contains articles and television 
coverage of the Petitioner in major media. Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the 
Petitioner satisfied the published material criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets two further criteria, including through the 
submission of comparable evidence, discussed below. We have reviewed all of the evidence in the 
record and conclude that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies the plain language 
requirements of at least three criteria. 
2 
.
Matter of A-W-M-A-
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
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 argues that he provided reference letters establishing his eligibility for this criterion. 
Specifically, he claims that he "has made 'original' contributions in the film industry that are fresh, 
inventive, and creative as evidenced by his unique and groundbreaking work on internationally 
acclaimed film productions." In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a 
petitioner must establish that not only has he 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. 
In reviewing his recommendation letters, the authors praise the Petitioner for his work in films but 
do not demonstrate that his contributions have been of major significance in the field. For instance, 
senior vice president of business affairs for stated that the 
Petitioner's "problem solving and decision-making skills, sound judgment, and creative acumen 
shepherded to completion a critically acclaimed feature." Moreover, adjunct 
professor at , opined that the Petitioner's "ability to conceive lyrical and 
powerful narratives with multi-dimensional characters is coupled with his remarkable aptitude as a 
world-class producer." Further, founder of the indicated that 
the Petitioner "has extensive experience with the financial aspects of film production, in addition to a 
strong business background, impeccable taste and sharp vision for the artistic success of a project." 1 
While the letters commend the Petitioner for his skills, they do not explain what specific 
contributions he has made, or how they are "of major significance in the field." 2 Having a diverse 
skill set is not a contribution of major significance in-and-of itself. Rather, the record must be 
supported by evidence that the Petitioner has already used those unique skills to impact the field at a 
significant level. 
The letters considered above primarily contain attestations of the Petitioner's status in the field 
without providing specific examples of contributions that rise to a level consistent with major 
significance. Letters that repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how an individual's 
contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish original contributions of 
major significance in the field. See Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, ajf'd in part 596 F.3d at 1115. 
1 Although we discuss a sampling of letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1 , Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator 's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADI /-14 8-9 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov /policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html; 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). 
3 
.
Matter of A-W-M-A-
Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The U. S. Att '.Y 
Gen. , 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist.1990). 
In addition, the Petitioner contends that he provided published material showing the significance of 
his movie, Specifically, the Petitioner asserts that "[t]he original nature of the film's 
social commentary is attested by numerous articles that specifically mention how the social impact 
of generated a fervent interest in the film." While the material indicates that 
premiered "in more than 400 cinemas in 42 states," the Petitioner did not establish how the movie 
significantly influenced the film industry. Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the movie 
had a meaningful impact to the overall field beyond its release in movie theatres. 
Finally, the Petitioner argues that he spoke at the 
stated that the " was delighted to have [the 
Petitioner] as a key participant at this conference where he spoke with great passion and authority on 
the issue." However, the Petitioner did not show how speaking at the regarding 
poverty and inequality is an original contribution of major significance to the field of films. The 
Petitioner, for instance, did not demonstrate that his speaking engagement significantly influenced 
the general entertainment or motion picture industries. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he 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). 
As indicated above, the Petitioner presented evidence showing that premiered at 400 
movie theatres throughout the United States. Accordingly, the Petitioner established that he satisfied 
this criterion. 
B. Comparable Evidence 
Although the Director determined that the Petitioner satisfied the published material criterion, the 
Petitioner requests that his television interviews be considered as comparable evidence. In addition, 
the Petitioner indicates that his "critically acclaimed successes" reflect comparable evidence under 
the artistic display criterion. As discussed above, we found that the Petitioner fulfilled the published 
material and artistic display criteria without the submission of comparable evidence. Moreover, the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows for comparable evidence if the listed criteria do not 
readily apply to his occupation.3 A petitioner should explain why he has not submitted evidence that 
would satisfy at least three of the criteria set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) as well as why the 
evidence he has included is "comparable" to that required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).4 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 12. 
4 Id. 
4 
Matter of A-W-M-A-
Here, the Petitioner has not shown why he cannot offer evidence that meets at least three of the 
criteria. The fact that the Petitioner did not provide documentation that fulfills at least three is not 
evidence that a movie producer could not do so. As discussed, the Petitioner claimed to meet three 
criteria. Moreover, the Petitioner did not show that producers cannot present evidence relating to the 
other criteria. As such, the Petitioner did not establish that he is eligible to meet additional criteria 
through the submission of comparable evidence. 
C. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Petitioner received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 
nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude 
USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard­
statute, regulations, and case law. Many Form 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS 
approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 
(D.D.C. 2003); !KEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., 
Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), afj'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Furthermore, our authority over the USCIS service centers, the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant 
visa petition, is comparable to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even 
if a service center director has approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an individual, we are 
not bound to follow that finding in the adjudication of another immigration petition. Louisiana 
Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of 
final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F .3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that 
the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long 
held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the 
"extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954. Here, the Petitioner has not 
shown that the significance of his 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 he 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). 
5 
Matter of A-W-M-A-
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-W-M-A-, ID# 1602798 (AAO Aug. 15, 2018) 
6