dismissed EB-1A Case: Film And Television Direction

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 1 7 513 9 81 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 01 , 2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a film and tele vision director , seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(A), 8 U .S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(1 )(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 the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria for this 
classification, as required. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner ' s burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence . Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C . § 1361 ; Matter ofChawath e, 25 I&N 
Dec. 369 , 375 (AAO 2010) . Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens 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 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he 
or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten 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 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-paii review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits dete1mination); 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 
The Petitioner is a film and television director who has directed e isodes of rimetime television series 
In addition, she has 
written and directedL----------r------,..Jfilms. The record reflects that the Petitioner has 
a bachelor of arts from The University and is a graduate of the.__ _______ _.'s 
I I and I I Program. She currently works in the United States in 0-1 
nonimmigrant status and provided evidence of her upcoming commitments to direct episodes ofD 
I 11 II I andl l among other series. 
Because the Petitioner 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). The Petitioner claims to meet eight of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii), Published materials in professional publications or major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance. 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments; 
• (ix), High remuneration for services; and 
• (x), Commercial success in the performing arts. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner satisfied one of the criteria, relating to judging the work 
of others in her field. We agree. The record reflects that the Petitioner has served on judging panels 
for film festivals and film awards competitions and therefore supports the Director's determination 
that she satisfies the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she also meets the other seven claimed criteria, which we will 
discuss below. After reviewing all the evidence in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has 
satisfied only one of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Documentation of the individual'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) 
To satisfy this criterion, a petitioner must demonstrate that they received prizes or awards, and that the 
awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. Relevant 
considerations regarding whether the basis for granting the prizes or awards was excellence in the field 
include, but are not limited to, the criteria used to grant the prizes or awards, the national or 
international significance of the prizes or awards in the field, and the number of awardees or prize 
recipients as well as any limitations on competitors. 1 
The Petitioner has documented her receipt of the following awards for her short and feature films: 
•• c.,.[ ___ .....,I Award, presented b~ !Network (1999); 
I I Film Festival, Best of the Festival Winler /200 5); ~ 
• Film Festival Award Film (2005); 
t------..__ _______ _JFilm Festival, Award Winner(2005); 
Erner in Television Director Award, presented byl I Film and Television ..----.,._..i.;;;;=== 
• 
• 
• ~-----~Fil~ Festival,l~ ____ _.I Award~ ____________ _. 
(2012); and.--------, 
• I fl !Award," presented by._l ____ _.1(2016). 
The Petitioner also provided evidence that she was nominated for a.__ _____ -===--__,,Award 
for Outstanding Directorial Achievement in al I for an ~nisode off he0 series I I I lin 2017. 2 We observe that a national Director's Guild~-___ _._Award of this nature 
would be sufficient to meet this criterion; however, a nomination for this award does not satisfy the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner's 2008 ~ !Emerging Television Director Award," was co-presented by the 
~ _ ____.I branch of the Director's Guild I I rather than by the national organization. The Petitioner 
did not provide supporting evidence to establish thatthis regionally granted, early career award gamers 
the national recognition oftheDirector'sGuildl bnnual industiy awards for which the Petitioner 
was subsequently nominated, or otheiwise establish the national or international recognition associated 
with this award. The description of the award states that is granted to an '"emerging I 
director" and included a two-month mentorship with an established television director and intensive 
industry coaching. The Petitioner generally asserts that Director's Guild! I awards are 
1 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2 appendix, https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (providing guidance on the evaluation 
of evidence submitted in support of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x)). 
2 
The Petitioner's Internet Movie Database (IMDB) profile lists a second Director's Guildl I a ward nomination 
(specifically, fora~TeamAward") foranepisodeo~ I 2014, but she did not submit 
any additional evidence related to this nomination. 
3 
"equivalent" to Director's Guild I awards and otherwise "equal in stature and reputation," but 
has not submitted sufficient evidence to support this claim with respect to herl I award 
received in 2008. 
The Petitioner'~ !Award" was presented to her by th re ional 
chapter of the I I, a national union for.__ __ _. 
performers working in these industries. Although the record documents her receipt of the award, she has 
not addressed this award in her brief on appeal or in any letters in su ort of the petition. The record 
contains a copy of her award plague, a Wikipedia article abou screenshots from thd I 
website, and anl I press release about the 201 .__ ___ _. Awards. This evidence 
indicates that the award, first given in 2016, is intended to honor diversity in the industry and to "celebrate 
one individual and one company each year whose work demonstrate a commitment to inclusion on 
screen." The evidence does not fmiheraddress the criteria for granting the award or the scope of the 
awards, which appears to be limited to the I I chapter. Nor does the record include any 
media coverage of the Petitioner's receipt of the award that would assist in establishing whether it 
garnered publicity commensurate with a nationally recognized entertainment industry award. 
Accordingly, the evidence submitted is insufficient to demonstrate that the I I award is a 
nationally recognized award for excellence in television or motion picture directing. 
With respect to the Petitioner's film festival awards, the record is similarly lacking evidence that the 
awards she received are nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. Her 
I I Award" was accompanied by evidence that appears to relate to a different awards program 
called! I Awards. The Petitioner's awav...,.._._........., .......... ........,........_'+' her by the I I 
Network in 1999. The information provided re ardin Awards indicates that this award 
was first presented in 2000 and is overseen b .__ ___________________ ___,· 
c::J Therefore, this information does not appear to relate to her 1999 award. Similarly, while the 
Petitioner provided a certificate documenting herreceipt of an award at thel IFilm Festivai the 
record lacks any supporting evidence regarding this festival or the national or international recognition 
associated with this award. 
The Petitioner indicates in supporting letters that she received a 2004....._ _______ ___, Award at 
the 2004 Film Festival, which is described in the record as a festival dedicated to providing 
She did not provide '---------------------------------' documentary evidence of her receipt of this award or additional information regarding the festival or 
award. According to the Petitioner's IMDb profile, she received thel IA ward for Best Feature 
Film at thd I Film Festival for her film I I in 2005. The record includes a 
photograph of a trophy that appears to be a 2005 l I Award." However, she did not 
mention this award in her supporting letters, submit any additional evidence related to this award, and has 
not established that it is a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in her field. 
Regarding thel _ IFilm Festival the Petitioner submitted a screenshot 
from the website] I which briefly describes the Award and the rules and terms of 
entry for the 22nd edition of the festival, indicating that it was .__ ____________ ___, 
I I" According to the information provided, the festival's award 
winner receives "an InkTip script listing to assist the winner in getting their script for their next film to 
producers." The record does not contain any other evidence related to this award and does not support a 
4 
determination that this festival'~._ ___ _.IAward is a nationally or internationally recognized prize for 
excellence. 
Finally, the Petitioner documented her receipt of al I Award in the.__ ______ _. 
I I category a~----------~ Film Festival, in 2012. She 
provided information about the festival and its 2020 entry requirements from the website Film Freeway, 
a Wikipedia aiiicle about the festival, and a 2017 article about the festival's 50th anniversary, published 
online by Houston Press. The information from Film Freeway describes! las '"one of the oldest 
and largest film and video competitions in the world, with morethan4,574categoryentries received from 
7 4 nations in 2020." The recordreflects that the festival has over 200 sub-categories, with approximately 
15-20% of all entries receiving awards across categories. Awards are based on scoring by a jury with a 
score cutoff for each level of award, which include the Grand Remi, special jury award, platinum, gold, 
silver, and bronze awards. The description of the festival indicates that the fe~tiva) is international in 
scope and that several well-known filmmakers received their very first awards a~ I 
While the festival appears to be well-established in the independent film industry, it bestows several 
hundred awards annually. The record does not contain sufficient evidence to demonstrate that every 
level of Remi Award in every category is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award. 
The issue here is not the national or international scope of the competition, but rather whether the 
Petitioner's specific award is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence 
in the field. The record does not contain evidence of the nature or type ofrecognition the Petitioner 
received as a result of this award, such as, for example, media about the 2012 festival in which she 
participated, nor does it contain evidence of the nature and type of independent recognition that Remi 
award winners receive in general, outside of the festival itself. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that she satisfies this criterion. Although 
we acknowledge that the Petitioner is the recipient of several awards in her field which recognize the 
quality of her work, the evidence she submitted does not demonstrate that the awards are nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in her field of endeavor. 
Documentation of the individual '.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 expe1ts in their disciplines or fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
The Petitioner did not initially claim eligibility under this criterion. In response to a request for evidence 
(RFE), the Petitioner mentioned in her cover letter that she "is a member of a major industry guild and 
union who selected her for membership due to her high level of achievements and having reached certain 
milestones and benchmarks." The Director determined, however, that the Petitioner did not provide 
evidence in support of her claim that she has one or more qualifying memberships in associations. 
On appeal, the Petitioner repeats her assertion that she satisfies this criterion but does not address the 
Director's determination that the record lacks evidence to support that claim. There are references in the 
record to the Petitioner's membership in the Director's Guild I I However, there is no primary 
evidence ofhermembershipin this oranyotherassociationinherfield. Noris there evidence to establish 
that she is a member of an association in her field which requires outstanding achievements ofits members 
5 
as judged by nationally or internationally recognized experts, such as documentation of official 
membership requirements and member selection procedures for the Director's Guildl lor other 
associations. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that she meets this criterion. 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the individual's work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
To satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must provide evidence of published material about her in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media, as well as the title, date, and author of 
the material. Here, the Petitioner has consistently claimed that she "has been extensively featured in 
major newspapers, magazines and trade publications inl I' 
The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted articles from the websites wdtvpress.com, 
Indiewire.com, sheknows.com, blackincanada.com, caribbeantalesfestival.com, playbackonline.ca, 
the audienceawards.com, as well as various online reviews for television shows in which she was 
identified as the director of a particular episode or episodes. The Director determined that the articles 
from these sources did not satisfy this criterion because, while they mentioned the Petitioner, they 
were not about the Petitioner and her work. Because this required element of the criterion at 8 C.F.R 
§ 204 .5 (h)(3 )(iii) was not met, the Director did not further evaluate this evidence to determine if the 
referenced articles included all required information ( author, date and title) or whether they appeared 
in qualifying professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
The Director determined that some of the submitted articles are about the Petitioner and her work in 
the field, specifically referencing articles from the websites pennantmediagroup.com, 
megadiversities.com, wgsi.utoronto.ca, filmfatales.org, and notablelife.com. However, the Director 
concluded that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient supporting documentation to establish that these 
publications are professional or major trade publications or other major media, as claimed. 
On appeal, the Petitioner makes the same claims she made at the time of filing and in response to the 
Director's RFE, without identifying specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact 
for the appeal, or even referencing the Director's decision on this issue. Rather, the brief submitted 
on appeal repeats previous claims that the Petitioner "has been extensively featured in maJor 
newspapers, magazines and trade publications inl I' 
As the Petitioner has not specifically contested the Director's reasons for finding the submitted 
evidence to be deficient, we will not address every article here. Nevertheless, we have reviewed the 
evidence submitted in support of this criterion, including evidence not expressly mentioned in the 
denial decision, and conclude that the record supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner 
did not establish that any of the submitted aiiicles satisfy all requirements set f mih at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3 )(iii). 
For example, the Petitioner submitted a printout of an article titled·~-----------~ 
I I' from the website of the National Screen 
Institute (NSI) ~ I. The article contains a group photograph that includes the 
6 
Petitioner and her name is mentioned in the caption, but the article is not about her and she is not 
otherwise mentioned. Even if this could be considered a "professional or major trade publication" in 
the Petitioner's field, it would not satisfy this criterion. The Director mentioned that the Petitioner 
submitted evidence from an ABC television press website (wdtvpress.com/abc). This website 
published behind-the-scenes photographs taken on set during the filming of an episode of1 I 
~-------~ The Petitioner is identified in the captions accompanying the photographs, but 
there is no accompanying article about her, and therefore, this evidence does not satisfy the 
requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Another article, titled.___~-------------r--------------........, 
is about al !television network's decision not to air 
1-------.----'' and the ensuing court battle over the show. The Petitioner was one of several 
television indus fi res contacted b the article's author who solicited her view on 
L---------1---J------.l' The aiiicle refers to her as "a rising star," mentions that she has directed 
r-"-'~~~~'----~=-----~=an=d~i=n=c=lu~d"'-"-ies a quote from her about I I 
However, the lengthy article, published online 
by Medium, is not about the Petitioner. 3 
The Petitioner submitted a second aiiicle from Medium, an interview with the Petitioner about the 
Netflix serid !published byl I While this article is about the Petitioner and 
her work as a director, it does not identify an author or include the full date of publication. Further, 
the aiiicle is not accompanied by sufficient evidence thatMedium, an open online publishingplatf01m, 
qualifies as a professional or major trade publication. We note that evidence of published material in 
major media publications should establish that the circulation ( on-line or in print) is high compared to 
other circulation statistics. 4 The Petitioner submitted ranking data from Similar Web indicating that the 
websiteranked2 l 9th in the United States, but did notofferfurthersupportfora claim that this ranking 
qualifies the blogging platform as "other major media." 
The Petitioner provided circulation statistics and rankings for only two other T ublications. She 
provided a 2013 aiiicle published by notablelife.com, which is self-described as _ I I I covering "all aspects of millennial life." 
The article, an interview with the Petitioner about her career as a director, does not identify the author. 
Further, the Similar Web ranking for this publication i~ lis 43,059 and the Petitioner has not 
explained how this qualifies the magazine as a major medium. Therefore, while the aiiicle is about 
the Petitioner and her work, the evidence submitted regarding this publication's circulation and 
intended audience does not establish that it qualifies as a professional or major trade publication or 
other major medium. 
The Petitioner also provided a traffic overview and rankings from SimilarWeb for the website 
Indiewire.com. The accompanying article from Indiewire, an online publication covering film and 
television, was written in 2015 regarding about an upcoming! I 
3 The author includes a note in the introduction of his article, indicating that a shorter version of the piece had been 
published byth~ ~ Globe andMail. The record does not include a copy of that version and it is unknown 
if the brief paragraph that mentions the Petitioner was included. 
4 Sec 6 USCIS Policy Manual,supra, at F.2 appendix. 
7 
television series called~-------~ The Petitioner's name is mentioned at the end of the 
article as one of four individuals "rounding out the directing team," but the article is not about her and 
would not satisfy this criterion even if we determined that the article appeared in a qualifying 
publication. 
As noted by the Director, while the record includes other articles that are about the Petitioner and 
related to her work as a director, none of them were accompanied by the required evidence of 
publication in rofessional or major trade publications or other major media. The Petitioner and 
anothe filmmaker are featured in a rint article titled I I 
'-----------------------' 'but the evidence does not clearly identify the 
name and full date of the publication or contain any inf mmation about the publication, such as its 
intended audience and circulation statistics. A profile about the Petitioner and her career was 
published by the website of the Women and Gender Studies Institute of the University I I I ~, the Petitioner's alma mater, but the article is not accompanied by evidence that 
this website qualifies as a professional or major trade publication or other major media. 
We have reviewed all the evidence submitted in support of this criterion and conclude that it does not 
support the Petitioner's claim that she "has been extensively featured in major newspapers, magazines 
and trade publications inl I' The Petitioner has not demonstrated 
that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence ofthe individual's original scientific. scholarly. artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
To satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(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 did not initially claim to meet this criterion. In a cover letter accompanying her response 
to the RFE, counsel confusingly referred to "compulsive and overwhelming evidence tha~ I 
[sic]" meets this criterion. Other than mentioning that the Petitioner has made "significant contributions . 
to high-profile productions," the letter did not elaborate on how the Petitioner satisfies this criterion. For 
ex amp le, it did not identify her original contributions and their major significance or point to specific 
evidence she was submitting in support of this criterion. 
At the time of filing and in response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted severnl letters from colleagues 
in the film and television industry who praise her technical skills and artistic talents as a director and note 
the high profile nature of some of her netwotk television projects. The Petitioner offered these letters as 
"other qualifying evidence of her extraordinary achievement," rather than submitting them in supp01t of 
the "original contributions" evidentiary criterion. The Director nevertheless evaluated the testimonial 
evidence, noting that the letters from experts in her field did not establish either her specific original 
contributions to the field or the major significance of such contributions. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she satisfies this criterion, repeating her claim that the record 
contains "compulsive and overwhelming evidence" related to this and all other claimed criteria. 
8 
However,her brief does not further elaborate on this claim, makes no additional reference to this criterion, 
and does not acknowledge or address the Director's reasons for finding the submitted evidence to be 
insufficient to meet her burden of proof. Therefore, the Petitioner has effectively abandoned this issue 
and we need not further address it. See Sepulveda v. US. Atty Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th 
Cir. 2005); see alsoHristovv. Roark, No. 09-CV-2731, 2011WL4711885, at* 1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) 
(plaintiff's claims found to be abandoned when not raised on appeal to the AAO); see also Greenbriar, 
Ltd. v. City of Alabaster, 881 F.2d 1570, 1573 n.6 (11th Cir. 1989) (stating that passing references to 
issues are insufficient to raise a claim for appeal, and such issues are deemed abandoned). 
As noted by the Director, the Petitioner submitted testimonial evidence from individuals who attest to 
her talent, comment on the quality of her work on specific projects, and state that she is in demand as 
an episodic television director. They do not explain the major significance of specific artistic 
contributions that the Petitioner has made or elaborate on how such contributions are "original." 
Having a unique or special skill set as a director is not a contribution of major significance in-and-of­
itself. The record must be supported by evidence that the Petitioner has already used those skills and 
talents to impact the field at a significant level, which she has not shown. For example, the Petitioner's 
letters do not contain specific, detailed information identifying her original contributions and 
explaining the unusual influence her work has had on the overall field. Letters that specifically 
aiiiculate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on 
subsequent work add value. 5 However, the letters submitted here do not demonstrate the Petitioner's 
impact beyond the individual television episodes she directed. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not shown that she has made original contributions 
of major significance in the field. 
Evidence that the individual has pe1formed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
To satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must satisfy three elements: that her role was ( 1) leading or critical; 
(2) that such role was for an organization or establishment; and (3) that the organization or establishment 
has a distinguished reputation. A leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall 
organizational hierarchy and through the role's matching duties. A critical role should be apparent 
from the Petitioner's impact on the organization or the establishment's activities. The Petitioner's 
performance in this role should establish whether the role was critical for the organization or 
establishment as a whole. 
In claiming eligibility under this criterion, the Petitioner describes the many responsibilities of a 
television director, noting that the director "is a key, major role in the production of any feature film 
or television production," and that the position is "key, vital and important to every production studio 
and television network." She asserted that she has served in a "critical lead position" with 
distinguished film and television production companies as a result of her work as a director on 
television shows for ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, CW Network, Netflix, Warner Bros. Television,Amblin 
5 Sec 6 USCIS Policy Manual,supra, at F.2 appendix. 
9 
Entertainment and others. Her initial evidence in support of this criterion included information about 
NBC, BBC America, and Warner Bros. Television Group. 
The Director determined that the evidence submitted did not establish how serving in a leading or 
critical role for an episode of a television show equates to serving in a leading or critical role for a 
television network, studio, or production company as a whole. Accordingly, he concluded that the 
Petitioner did not meet her burden to demonstrate that she has served in a qualifying role for an 
"organization or establishment" with a distinguished reputation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner repeats her assertion that episodic television directors provide "a critical and 
leading function to the overall production," and serve in a role that is "key, vital and important to every 
production studio and television network." 
The regulation requires a Petitioner's role to be leading or critical "for organizations or establishments," 
and the Petitioner has not established that any of the television shows she has directed qualify as 
organizations or establishments. Therefore, even if we detemnned that she held a leading or critical mle 
for a distinguished production (i.e., one or more episodes of a successful television series) additional 
evidence would be required to meet the requirements of this criterion. 
The testimonial evidence in the record includes several letters from television studio and production 
company executives. These letters, however, do not establish that the Petitioner held a leading or 
critical osition for these organizations. 6 I I Chair and CEO ofl I media company 
,.__ __________ L...::..co=nfirms that the Petitioner directed a total of six episodes of the 
~-----------~ series,,__ _______ __.He describes the show and praises the 
Petitioner's ability to understand and "visualize our show's character driven comedy and unique cultural 
perspective." A letter from lofl I Television praises the Petitioner's work on 
two episodes o~ landher"exceptional talent as a director and storyteller," an~ I 
President of I ~ states that he is an "enormous fan" qf..tb..e_fetitioner' s work and soeaks 
highly of the "special touch" she brought to individual episodes ofl___j;howsl IJ ] and 
I I 
While the authors of these and other letters uniformly offer high praise for the Petitioner and her artistic 
work as a director, they do not comment on whether or how her role has been critical in a way that 
contributed to the success of a production company, television network, or other organization or 
establishment or how her role as an episodic director has otherwise been commensurate with perfonnmg 
in a leading or critical role with their respective organizations. Other letters in the record are from 
executiveproducersot1 ll 1,1 II Ian~ I 
and highlight the Petitioner's work on individual episodes of these shows; however, the producers do not 
speak to the Petitioner's leading or critical role for the production companies that develop the shows or 
the networks that air them. Again, a given individual's role must be leading or critical for a particular 
organization or establishment, rather than for one project, event, or assignment within that organization 
or establishment. 
6 See USCIS Policy Manual,supra, at F.2 appendix (statingthatletters from individuals with personal knowledge of the 
significance of a petitioner's leading orcriticalrole can be particularly helpful in making this determination as long as the 
letters contain detailed and probative information that specifically addresses how the role for the organization or 
establishment was lea ding or critic a 1). 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that she has performed in a leading or critical 
role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation. 
Evidence that the individual has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
To satisfy the requirements of this criterion, the Petitioner must establish that she has received a high 
salary, or other significantly high remuneration, based on a comparison with others in her field in 
similar positions and geographic locations. 7 
To document her past earnings, the Petitioner provided her 2019 IRS Forms W-2 and 1099, a copy of 
her 2018 U.S. nonresident tax return, copies of deal memos and evidence of payments she received 
for her work, and letters from the talent agency that represents her, which include additional details 
regarding her earnings from specific projects. The Petitioner's tax documents reflect that she had over 
$404,000 in earnings from her work as a television director in 2019. 
In a cover letter submitted with her initial evidence, the Petitioner cited to data from Payscale and 
Salary.com, noting that her annual earnings in 2019 were significantly higher than the average and 
high salaries for television directors reported by these two sources. 8 However, she also submitted 
data from other sources indicating that salaries for television directors working in southern California 
are significantly higher than the general nationwide figures provided by Payscale and Salary.com. 
For example, the Petitioner submitted Occupational Employment and Wage data for "Producers and 
Directors" from the Department of Labor's Occupational Employment Statistics website. This data, 
which was from May 2016, shows a mean annual wage of $93,840 and a 90th percentile wage of 
$189,870. The mean annual wage in thd I metropolitan area where the Petitioner wotks is 
$141,040, 50.3% higher than the national average. The evidence submitted does not include data on 
what constitutes a "high" salary inl las a point of comparison. Demonstrating that she earns 
above the average wage in thd I area is insufficient to satisfy this criterion. 
Fmiher, because the Petitioner provided evidence that she works on television productions that pay 
directors based on rates set by the Directors Guild of America (DGA), a more relevant point of 
comparison is the DGA's Minimum Salary Schedule, a copy of which was submitted with the initial 
filing. 9 According to this schedule, directors (in 2017-2018) were required to be paid at least $45,981 
for a one-hour network prime time television episode, for a guaranteed period of 15 days' work, with 
$3,065 per day in compensation for any additional days of work. 
7 Sec 6 USCIS Policy Manual,supra, atF.2 appendix(notingthatit is the petitioner's burden to provide geographical and 
position-appropriate evidence to establish that a sa laryis relatively high). 
8 The data sheprovided fromSala1y.comreporteda mediansalatyof$33,465 forthepositionof"Director- Stage, Motion 
Pictures, Television" and a 90 th percentile salary of $47,660. The information provided from Payscale indicates a 
"television director" median salaiy of$65A45 and a 90th percentile salary of$1 70,000. 
9 The Petitioner submitted the DGA's Minimum Salary Schedule valid from July 2017 through June 2018. The evidence 
in the record covers a multi-yearperiod and reflects that these rates undergo an incremental increase on an annual basis. 
We note that the rate for a one-hour network TV episode for the period July I, 2020 through June 30, 2021 was set at 
$48,318, with a daily rate of $3211. See Website of Director's Guild of America, "Basic Agreement Directors," 
https://dga.org/Contracts/Rates-2020-to-2021/BA-FLTTA-Rate-Card/Directors-2020-to-2021.aspx (last visited on June 
30, 2021 ). The same source reports a $46,671 rate for2018-2019 and a $47,371 rate for2019-2020. 
11 
While directors working on DGA-scale television productions may generally earn higher salaries 
compared to directors working on other types of projects, it is reasonable to compare the Petitioner's 
earnings to that of other professional television directors whose pay is also based on this minimum 
salary schedule. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering a 
professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 
965, 968 (N .D. Ill. 1996)( considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforcers); Muni v. 
INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N. D. Ill. 1995) (comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salruy 
of other NHL defensemen). 
Based on the evidence of payments she received for individual projects, the Petitioner has not 
established that she has commanded a high salary compared to other similarly employed television 
directors. She submitted three deal memos that she signed in 2017 for episodes o~ II I 
an~ I Each one reflected that she received the minimum salary set forth in the DGA salary 
schedule. A letter from her agent.I l regarding her projected 
earnings (based on one closed deal and seven others in negotiation) indicates that she was expected to 
earn $47,371 per episode for upcoming work in 2020 and 2021. Overall, the initial evidence indicated 
that the Petitioner has earned, and would continue to earn, the minimum salary set by the DGA for 
each of her projects. 
In response to the RFE, the Director submitted two letters froml I ofi J both dated 
July 21, 2020, which a~the Petitioner's earnings relative to the DGA minimum salary. In one 
letter, she indicates thaL_J can confirm that the Petitioner "has been paid above industry standard" 
and states: 
The typical compensation for a DGA hour long drama is $46,371.00 and [the Petilionerl I 
has been P.aid well above that on several shows between 2018 and 2020, including 
c=:::Jfo~ 1($75,447).I lforp<$6o,oo3),c=J 
forC] ($65,33 7),1 I forl 1{$60,597) and I forl_J 
($56,845). 
In the second letterJ I states that "for a Director in the US, the minimum episodic rate for 
an hour-long television series is $46,671 (USD)."I I listed fees the Petitioner earned for 
eight network television episodes in 2018. These fees ranged from ,46,r 1 p...$..6..0..5.. According to 
I I the Petitioner earned $50,666 for directing episode ofL___j but the initial 
evidence, which included the Petitioner's deal memo forth is episode, indicated that she was contracted 
to receive DGA scale fora basic cable episode ($33,775 for 14 days, plus $2,413/day beyond 14 days). 
While the Petitioner may have been paid for extra days of shooting, there is insufficient evidence to 
establish that she was paid well above the DGA scale for this episode. The record does not contain 
copies of contracts or deal memos for the other 2018 projects listed i~ l's letter. 
I I also lists the Petitioner's earnings fer episode for various projects in 2019, indicating 
rates that ranr from $44,383 for an episode of I to $150,895 for two episodes of 
I The record does not contain the Petitioner's deal mc;mos for these projects completed 
in 2019 but does include other documentation of payments she received for some of this work. For 
example, while the letters from I indicate that the Petitioner commanded a per episode rate of 
12 
approximately $75,000 forl , I other evidence indicates that she received the DGA rate of 
$46,671 per episode, along with $3111 per day for 17 days of extra shooting on the two episodes. 
The letter froni O lalso states that the Petitioner's earnings are "more than double the 
Standard I I TV /Director's Guildl l rate" and place her among the top income earners 
in television inl I However, given that the Petitioner is working on U.S. television projects that 
pay according to the DGA rate, the record does not establish that the Director's Guild I I rates 
provide a relevant point of comparison. 
Finally, while the record contains evidence that the Petitioner has received additional remuneration 
for some of her work in the form of residual payments, she has not provided supporting evidence to 
establish that such remuneration has been "significantly high" when compared to the residual 
payments that others in the field receive, or otherwise shown thathertotal remuneration is significantly 
high. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
B. Summary and Reserved Issue 
We conclude that the Petitioner satisfies the criterion related to judging at 8 e.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), 
but for the reasons discussed above, did not submit evidence that satisfies the criteria relating to 
awards, memberships, published material, original contributions, leading or critical roles, and high 
salary. Although she claims on appeal that she can also satisfy the criterion relating to commercial 
success in the perfmmingarts at8 e.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x), we need not reach this additional issue. As 
the Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 e.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3), we reserve this criterion. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating 
that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required to make findings and decisions 
unnecessaryto the results they reach), see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
e. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Petitioner has been granted 0-1 status, a classification reserved 
for nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USeIS has approved at least one 0-1 
nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude 
users from denying an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different statute, 
regulations, and case law. Further, it must be emphasized that each petition filing is a separate 
proceeding with a separate record. In making a determination of statutory eligibility, users is limited 
to the information contained in that individual record of proceedings. 8 e.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l 6)(ii). We 
are not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, 
merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See Matter of Church Scientology 
Int'/, 19 I&N Dec. 593,597 (eomm'r 1988);see also Sussex Eng'g, Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 
1084, 1090(6their.1987). 
13 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that satisfy at least three of the ten criteria. Accordingly, 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 supp01i a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the sustained 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. The record reflects 
that the Petitioner is in the latter category. The evidence establishes that the Petitioner has built a 
successful career in a competitive industry, has earned the high regard of her industry colleagues, and 
has enjoyed an increase in demand for her services in the years leading up to the filing of the petition. 
However, 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 record does not demonstrate the Petitioner, as of the date of filing, 
has garnered the required sustained national or international acclaim in her field, and that she is one 
of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section203(b)(l )(A) 
of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
14