dismissed EB-1A Case: Film And Television Production

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 4699024 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : DEC. 20, 2019 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a[ n] film director and producer , seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
satisfied any of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which she must meet at least three. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )( 1) 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 in the area of 
extraordinary ability , and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The tenn "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 sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through 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 sufficient qualifying 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). 
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. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a television and film director and producer holding a Master of Science degree in 
cinematography and TV production from thel !University of Culture and Arts. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
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 Director found that the Petitioner met none of the evidentiary 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she meets the following 
evidentiary criteria: awards at § 204.5(h)(3)(i); original contribution at § 204.5(h)(3)(v); scholarly 
articles at § 204.5(h)(3)(vi); and leading or critical role at § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). After reviewing all of 
the evidence in the record, we conclude that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner fulfills 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 asserts eligibility for this criterion throu h awards received b the televised concert 
I I and the movies and I I 
She also claims to meet this criterion through her receipt of the .__ ______ _.Ukraine Football 
League medal and thel I award from Ukraine for her "contribution for the liberation of Ukraine 
at the time of anti-people power." 
As it relates to I l the Petitioner provides translated screenshots from the award's 
website https://teletriumf.au, the award's criteria, translated screenshots of the program's credits from 
gordist.com, and the abovementioned letters. The screenshots from teletriumf.au confirm that in 2006 
this program received the Teletriumf award for'~-------------" and the award 
criteria establish that it is a nationally recognized award granted for excellence in the field of 
filmmaking. 
2 
In addition to being a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in the field, the 
regulation provides that the focus should be on the Petitioner's receipt of the awards or prizes. 1 In the 
instant petition, however, the record indicates that an entity, as opposed to the Petitioner, received the 
award. For example, the screenshots from teletriumf.ua attribute the film award to ,j l" 
and the translated screenshots of the program credits from gordist.com indicate that the production is 
copyrighted by Alternatively, in his letter of recommendation! I 
director of the '-------,----------,-----'' states, '~received this prestigious 
national award for the project 2006 .... " Discrepancies in this documentation 
notwithstanding, the record indicates that eithe ~----~orD received the award. 
However, an individual may also be considered to be a recipient of an award if they are integral to a 
group's winning of that award. The tr n 1 r r m r <lits from gordist.com show that the 
Petitioner was the "2nd TV director" for andl l's correspondence 
notes that the film was "directed by~----~" However, the record lacks information about the 
role of a 2nd TV director that might demonstrate how this role is integral to the success of a film or 
television production. I l's correspondence similarly lacks specific examples of how the 
Petitioner's work was integral tol I receipt of this award. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not 
established that she was a recipient of the Teletriumf award forl I 
On appeal, the Petitioner also asserts that the Director failed to account for awards received by the 
films I f andD However, the record lacks evidence sufficient to establish that these 
films received awards or prizes that are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the 
field of film or television direction. With regard to I l the record contains printouts from 
IMDb.com, journeyman.tv, myzff.com, www.pelicam.ro, and Microsoft.com as documentation that 
she meets this criterion. The printouts fromjourneyman.tv, myzff.com, and Microsoft.com contain a 
synopsis of the movie and identify the producer, but do not indicate that it received any awards. 
The record also includes letters of recommendation froml I chief executive officer of 
andl I movie director and producer noting that it "received 
~s_p_e-c1-.a-l-jury--p-ri_z_e_f_o_r~the "Best International Feature" at the ~ j film festival in 2015." 
However, the record lacks documentary evidence substantiating ~----~s and I Is 
assertions, such as a copy of the award, media reports, or other relevant materials, nor does it establish 
that the special jury prize for this festival is internationally or nationally recognized for excellence in 
the field, as required. In addition, the information from IMDB.com indicates thatl I 
received nominations at several festivals, but received no awards or prizes at these events. 
As it relates to I I the Petitioner provides a screenshot from Amazon and a Wikipedia entry 
containing a synopsis of the film with information about its director and an article from https://wff.pl 
mentioning the film as a nominee for "the main award -.__ ______ ~l~irector A ward 
and Special Jury award." However, the record lacks evidence establishing thaL____}eceived one of 
these awards at the I l or establishing that the film received prizes or awards at other 
festivals. 
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 ADJ 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
3 
Finally, regarding the Petitioner's receipt of awards from the I t Ukraine Football 
League, and from the l I for her "contribution for the liberation of Ukraine at the 
time of anti-people power," the record contains a photocopy and translation of each. However, the 
record lacks evidence that these awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in 
the field of film production, as required. 
For the abovementioned reasons, the Petitioner has not established her eligibility for this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the Petitioner must establish that not 
only has she made original contributions but that she has 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 the field. 
The Petitioner argues that her development of "the innovative and unique lighting concept" for a 
television production that "created a visual effect of a performer's disappearance from one part of the 
stage during the performance and his/her appearance at another part" demonstrates that she meets this 
criterion. As evidence, she refers to the aforementioned correspondence from and 
I I wherein they both stated, "[the Petitioner's] idea of the 1 I style was so unique 
that many directors began to use it in their productions." However, the record lacks evidence 
corroborating these assertions, such as letters from television or movie directors who have employed 
this technique, or other materials demonstratin that the technique was originated by the Petitioner 
and has been widely implemented. Similarly, writes that the Petitioner used "an 
overhead camera which was positioned on rails" in her work o~ ________ .,,..., and that this and 
other "innovations have been adopted by others in their work," but this is also not supported by 
documentary or testimonial evidence. Letters that specifically articulate how the alien's contributions 
are of major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add value. Letters that lack 
specifics and make broad, unsupported assertions do not add value, and are not considered to be 
probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 2 
For this reason, the documentation in the record is not sufficient to establish that the Petitioner meets 
this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the _field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) 
The record reflects that the Petitioner published a 2018 article titled '..._ _________ __. 
I I' in Issue 38 of the journal Herald of KNUKiM, 
2 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 9. 
4 
Series of Art History, a publication of the I I University of Culture and Arts. 3 The 
Petitioner also provides evidence demonstrating she published a peer-reviewed book titled 'I I 
' This is sufficient to show that she meets this ~--------------------~ criterion, and we will withdraw the Director's determination to the contrary. 
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 asserts that she meets this criterion through her "leading and critical" role forD and 
references a letter froml I provided in response to the Director's September 2018 request 
for evidence in support of her claim. As it relates to a leading role, the 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. 4 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. 5 
In his correspondence.I I argues that the Petitioner's leading role is "confirmed by [the 
Petitioner] moving into a new prestigious role of the Director/Producer, the highest position in the 
world of film and media production." However, the record lacks evidence, such as an organizational 
structure fore=] which might establish the leading nature of her role withinO including how her 
position relates, for instance, to other directors and to executives such asl I 
As it relates to her critical role for the organization,~----~ asserts, "clear evidence of [the 
Petitioner's] leading and critical role in our company is her leadership in our most complex and 
prestigious projects, all of which resulted in the highest rating of our broadcasts." However, this letter 
does not offer sufficiently detailed information, nor does the record contain adequate corroborating 
evidence, regarding the impact of her work on television and movie ratings and other indicia of 
success, or otherwise demonstrate how her role as a director has had been of significant importance to 
the outcome of D's activities. 
~----~I also claims that 'D completely owed receiving of "Teletriumf'' Award ... to [the 
Petitioner's] work, her ingenuity, her talent, and extraordinary ability in the filmmaking industry" and 
that this "confirms [ the Petitioner's] leading and/ or critical role within c=]." However, his letter 
does not off er sufficiently detailed information, nor does the record contain adequate corroborating 
evidence to support these assertions, as we discuss above. Repeating the language of the statute or 
regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. 
Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajj'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. 
Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that she meets this criterion. 
3 The Petitioner provides an English language abstract of this a1iicle describing its research methodology and conclusions, 
as well as a translation of the journal's cover page and table of contents. 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 10. 
5 Id. 
5 
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 work 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 )(l)(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). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6