dismissed EB-1A Case: Film And Television

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 20, 2024 In Re: 32020911 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a screenwriter, director, and creative producer, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 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 petition, concluding that, although the 
Petitioner satisfied the initial evidence requirements for this classification, he did not demonstrate his 
sustained national or international acclaim and establish that he is among the small percentage at the 
very top of his field of endeavor. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F .R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability classification if they have extraordinary ability 
in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and their achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation; they seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. Section 203(b )( 1 )(A) of the Act. 
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 may demonstrate 
international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award). Absent such an achievement, a petitioner must provide 
sufficient qualifying documentation demonstrating that they meet at least three of the ten criteria listed 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
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. 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); Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
A. Regulatory Criteria 
The Petitioner is a screenwriter, director, and producer in the fields of television, film, and music. He 
intends to continue his work in the entertainment industry in the United States. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown 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). The Director determined that the Petitioner met the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), and 
(iv), relating, respectively, to his receipt of lesser-known national awards, published material about 
him and his work, and judging the work of others in his field. The record supports that determination. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also satisfies additional criteria related to original artistic 
contributions of major significance in his field, display of his work at artistic exhibitions and 
showcases, and performance in leading and critical roles of organizations that have a distinguished 
reputation. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), (vii), and (viii). 1 As the Petitioner has established that he 
meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria, we need not reach a finding on these additional criteria 
here. We will address the evidence regarding these criteria in the final merits analysis below. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by preponderance of the evidence, that he has sustained national or international 
acclaim and is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits 
determination, we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to 
determine the individual's successes are sufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability in the field of 
endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 
F.3d at 1119-20. In this matter, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown his eligibility. 
1 On appeal the Petitioner does not contest the Director's conclusion that he had not satisfied the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) or (x). 
2 
To demonstrate his receipt of a nationally recognized award for excellence in his field of endeavor, 
the Petitioner submitted original and translated copies of his 2008 award, which he personally 
received for screenwriting on a popular parody television show in Russia. The record indicates that 
the is the highest award for achievement in the television arts industry in Russia, equivalent to 
an Emmy award the United States. While the award demonstrates a single significant achievement 
within the television industry, it does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at 
the very top of a field. Indeed, letters he submitted from experts in the field to attest to his experience 
are authored by individuals with supporting evidence listing numerous accolades for their 
accomplishments-including, for most of the authors, several awards, among others. In order 
to demonstrate the importance of awards, the Petitioner submitted articles about other 
individuals in the entertainment industry who had each received multiple I I and other national 
and international awards. The achievements of these individuals indicate that they have attained 
higher levels of acclaim than the Petitioner, which calls into question his assertion that he is at the top 
of his field as a "leading figure in the field of television and entertainment." 
On appeal, the Petitioner points to various awards won by the parody show and the show's award 
nominations for categories such as 'TV Program Screenwriter," "Producer of a TV Program," and 
"Director of a TV Program." He also highlights that another well-known show on which he worked 
won an award for best sitcom. First, we note that nominations cannot be considered awards according 
to the plain language of the criterion. 2 Second, these awards were not granted to the Petitioner for his 
specific contributions, 3 but to other show creators or to the show itself. Involvement in an award­
winning project does not necessarily reflect the awarding entity's intention to recognize the work of an 
individual participant. The Petitioner has not submitted evidence or statements from the awarding entities 
to confirm that the Petitioner's contributions to the projects weighed significantly on the selection of the 
award recipients, such that the awards constituted recognition of the Petitioner's excellence in his field. 
Although the record demonstrates that the Petitioner received a notable nationally recognized award 
in 2008- a -the receipt of a single award for contributions to one show in a single year thirteen 
years prior to the filing of his petition is not indicative of an individual who is at the top of his field 
and who has maintained sustained acclaim within that field. 
To demonstrate that material has been published about the Petitioner and his work in major media, the 
Petitioner submitted articles and documentation of interviews from 2015, 2016, and 2019 discussing 
his work on music videos and on a documentary he made of his home city in Russia,I I Although 
the Petitioner has been recognized and his work has been discussed in several media publications, that 
recognition is limited to his creation of a single documentary film aboutl land his production of 
two music videos for a musical group in Russia. The record does not include evidence explaining the 
impact of his work within the entertainment industry or elsewhere to signal a level of acclaim 
commensurate with recognition as an individual at the top of his field who has sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
As to the Petitioner's experience judging the work of others in his field, the Petitioner submitted 
evidence of his service as a jury member for two film festivals that he organized in I I an event 
2 See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
3 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2 (stating that the 
wording of the regulation requires the prizes or awards to be received by the individual, not by his or her employer). 
3 
held in 2013 and an international film festival 2019. The Petitioner also submitted evidence of his 
participation as a jury member from 2013 to 2019 on a long-running and well-known comedy 
competition show that originated in the Soviet Union and developed into an international competition. 
The president of the show's _______ provided the following in a letter of support 
( quoted as written): 
For over 6 years, [the Petitioner] served as a Jury Member of the I I 
Ievaluating stage performances of the competing teams. It was a privilege for 
us to have among our Jury Members such an acclaimed, award-winning Screenwriter, 
Director, and Producer as [the Petitioner] is. We invited [the Petitioner] to serve as a 
JuryJury Member because he is one of the most talented and acclaimed Arts and 
Television industry experts in Russia. Only professionals of such a high caliber serve 
as Jury Members. 
While the league president's statement is laudatory of the Petitioner, it is not corroborated by evidence 
such as jury selection criteria or other documentation to demonstrate requirements or qualifications 
necessary for participation as a jury member. Although the Petitioner's work in the entertainment 
industry may have been known amongst others in the industry and contributed to his selection as a 
judge of the competition, it is not clear how his participation on the show or in the two film festivals 
serve to establish that he is an individual of sustained acclaim at the top of his field. 
As evidence of the Petitioner's original contributions of major significance in his field, the Petitioner 
submitted letters of support from experts in the film and television industry. One such letter states that 
the Petitioner is "known in the industry for his original ideas and high caliber ability" and "has 
developed original ideas and works that have resulted in successful films, videos, and events." The 
author further states, "There is no doubt in my mind that [the Petitioner] has made a major impact on 
the television and entertainment industry, particularly in Russia." This letter, however, like others 
submitted, discusses the Petitioner's critical roles in the success of several entertainment projects; the 
letters do not specify how the Petitioner's contributions were original or of major significance to the 
field. One letter highlights the Petitioner's documentary of his home city of I I stating the 
following: 
[The Petitioner's] original contributions have helped develop the film industry in 
and resulted in unique films and videos that have attracted regional, national 
and international attention, as noted by government officials such as the Mayor of the 
city of Iand a Member of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian 
Federation. 
To corroborate this statement, the Petitioner submitted an honorary letter of appreciation for cultural 
contributions to the city ofI I in 2017, and the evidence demonstrates that the documentary was 
well-received by the local population and was covered in stories and interviews with the Petitioner on 
several media websites. While this evidence shows that the Petitioner is a recognized figure in the 
entertainment industry by the city and that his work may have had a positive influence on the city, the 
evidence does not support claims of any original contributions to the film or television industries. The 
Petitioner may consider his documentary to be an original artistic creation, but he has not demonstrated 
4 
that his documentary was an original contribution of major significance in the field of documentary 
filmmaking or in any other realm of the field of visual entertainment. 
Concerning the Petitioner's contention that the Director erred in determining that his work had not 
been displayed in accordance with the regulation,4 we acknowledge that the Petitioner's documentary 
and other projects in which he was involved demonstrate that the work or the product of his work as a 
director, writer, or producer has been displayed at artistic exhibitions and showcases. However, the 
record does not include evidence offering a comparison or other indicator of how the display of the 
Petitioner's work demonstrates that he has attained acclaim and is considered to be at the top of his 
field. It is not clear how the evidence demonstrates that the Petitioner is at the top of his field when 
the display of his work through television was work he was involved with as part of an extensive team, 
rather than as a major or leading creator or contributor. 
As evidence that the Petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation, the Petitioner submitted several letters of support. 
These letters of support laude the Petitioner's work on shows for previous employers and emphasize 
the critical role of his work on several television shows, two of which were adapted from popular 
shows in the United States and one of which won an award for best sitcom. These letters detail the 
Petitioner's critical role in the success of that sitcom, his critical role in producing a well-known 
parody show, and his leading role in directing music videos for a well-known musical group and for a 
commercial for a hockey organization. Additional letters describe his leading role in the production 
of awards shows for an internationally recognized haircare brand and for two film festivals. However, 
the record does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Petitioner has served in 
leading or critical roles consistently and at a level that would gamer recognition within the film or 
television industry as an individual of acclaim at the top of his field. 
Although the Petitioner has served in critical roles for establishments that have distinguished 
reputations, the number of those establishments is few relative to peers in the entertainment industry 
for whom he has submitted documentation detailing their career histories, experience, and accolades. 
As explained previously, the Petitioner's experience and achievements do not appear to equate to or 
surpass that of the support letter authors or the previous award winners, all of whom the evidence 
ofrecord indicates are highly regarded as acclaimed in their field. For example, the record shows that 
the author of one letter of support, a producer in Russia, became the first to make a deal with I I 
who bought five of his company's television series. As another example, a director/producer/writer 
in the United States who wrote the Petitioner a letter of support has directed numerous well-known 
series on major U.S. networks, including NBC, CBS, ABC, and The CW. And as an additional 
example, of the individuals for whom the Petitioner submitted evidence to establish the significance 
of the awards, one of these individuals won five I I two won sevenI I one won eight 
and another won fourteen. The notability and experience of all of these individuals in the 
entertainment industry suggests a level of professional advancement in their field well beyond that of 
the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that he has 
received sustained national or international acclaim in the entertainment industry and recognition as 
an individual at the top of his field. 
4 See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
5 
III. CONCLUSION 
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. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services 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 record indicates that the Petitioner may have contributed to the 
successful production of several television programs and events, that he served on the jury of a long­
running competition show, and that he created a documentary about a city that drew a positive response 
from the city. However, the record does not show that this success has translated into individual 
recognition for the Petitioner at a level that rises to sustained national or international acclaim or 
demonstrates 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)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not 
otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner 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). 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal 
will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6