dismissed EB-1A Case: Film And Television Production

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 18, 2024 In Re: 34874447 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(l)(A). This first preference classification makes 
immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained 
national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in their field through 
extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish 
that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. 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 afChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter a/Christa'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)(l)(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 l0) 
( 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 
The Petitioner is the executive producer for a production company in Brazil and the chief executive 
office of a television channel for a Brazilian audience based inl !Florida. The Petitioner intends 
to continue his work in the field of content production 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 criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), relating 
to published material about himself and his work, and we will not disturb that determination. The 
Director concluded, however, that the Petitioner did not meet claimed criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(v), (vii), (viii), or (x). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets these criteria-with 
the exception of the criterion at (vii) relating to display of his work, which he does not address. 1 The 
Petitioner submits new and previously submitted documentation discussing the responsibilities of 
executive producers and information about the _______ television shows that he has 
produced, and information about banks for which he has produced commercials. As more fully 
discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met at least three of the required criteria. 
Evidence ofthe individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions ofmajor significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204. 5 (h)(3 )(v). 
Initially, the Petitioner cited several elements of his professional experience as evidence of his original 
artistic contributions of major significance to the field of content production, including a certificate of 
appreciation for his sponsorship of the I I while working for I I We note that the 
intent behind the inclusion of this latter documentation is unclear, as neither the certificate nor a 
supporting letter concerning the certificate specifies what the Petitioner's sponsorship entailed or how 
it would be considered an original contribution or major significance to the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner again points to documentation previously submitted as evidence that he meets 
this criterion; he references his work on original movies and television series for which the record 
shows he served in various production roles, and he states that his original contributions of major 
significance "are evidenced by the significant recognitions from organizations of distinguished 
1 An issue not raised on appeal is waived. See, e.g., Matter ofO-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330,336 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing Matter 
ofR-A-M-, 25 l&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012)). 
2 
reputation that systematically retained the Petitioner to perform work, as well as the media publications 
and nominations that the Petitioner's work has achieved." The record shows that the Petitioner and 
his company have produced content for __________ and other clients, that he and 
his work have been discussed in several publications, and that one piece which he produced received 
an Emmy nomination. While entertainment and marketing content produced by the Petitioner may be 
considered "original" in an artistic sense, the evidence discussing or recognizing his work does not 
identify any aspect of that work that constituted a contribution of major significance in the field. On 
appeal, the Petitioner further claims the following: 
The major significance of his contributions is represented by the influence and 
reputation that he acquired in the field of artistic production. For example, major 
organizations became influenced by the original products that he was generating and 
started to retain the Petitioner for unique and original artistic work in different market 
sectors. 
The record does not include evidence sufficient to support these assertions. Neither the articles about 
his work nor the two letters of support submitted from previous colleagues reference the influence of 
his work. Specifically, the articles discuss his establishment of a Brazil-focused television channel in 
I I and provide information for movies and television programs that either he or his company in 
Brazil were involved in producing; the letters of support reference his qualities as a producer, such as 
his skill, dedication, and reliability. However, these documents do not highlight any specific original 
contributions of significance on any level that he has made to the field. 2 The Petitioner must support 
his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 
at 3 76. He has not done so here. As such, the Petitioner has not met the requirements for this criterion. 
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). 
On appeal, the Petitioner cites his previous work experience to demonstrate that he has performed in 
leading and critical roles for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. He 
describes the roles and responsibilities of executive producers and asserts that his company, which 
produced a movie released in Brazil that received several award nominations, is a "distinguished 
production company." The record, however, does not include sufficient documentation to support this 
assertion; articles and letters that reference the Petitioner's production company do not discuss its 
stature within the fields of film or television production, and the record does not otherwise include 
evidence providing information about the reputation of the company. 3 
2 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(5), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2. Submitted letters 
should specifically describe the person's contribution and its significance to the field and should also set forth the basis of 
the writer's knowledge and expertise. 
3 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(8), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2 . In evaluating 
whether a distinguished reputation exists, the relative size or longevity of an organization or establishment is not in and of 
itself a determining factor but is considered together with other information. Other relevant factors for evaluating the 
reputation of an organization or establishment can include the scale of its customer base or relevant media coverage. 
3 
As to the company's association with organizations that the Petitioner claims have distinguished 
reputations, the Petitioner submitted documentation to demonstrate his company's working 
relationships with _________________________ While the 
record reflects that these are distinguished organizations and that the Petitioner's company has 
provided them with professional services, the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner himself 
performed in a leading or critical role for either 4 For example, a production 
services agreement between his company andl Istipulates that the Petitioner's company will be 
responsible for its employees and that there will be no "labor relationship" between those employees 
and I I And although a letter of support from an executive with describes the Petitioner's 
talent and professionalism, it does not describe any leading or critical roles performed by the Petitioner 
for I I The Petitioner's company may have provided services tol lin the form of producing 
shows for ___________ but the record does not contain documentation to clarify 
how the Petitioner's role as an executive producer for his company constituted his performance in a 
leading or critical role within any component of the I I organization or for I I The 
Petitioner has not met the requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence ofthe individual's commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by 
box office receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(x). 
The Petitioner provides the following on appeal concerning the commercial success of his work as it 
relates to this criterion: 
The Petitioner has successfully operated his own production company and has attracted 
the attention of distinguished organizations that retained his services for substantial 
fees, as demonstrated by the contracts submitted by the Petitioner. 
Therefore, we understand that the Petitioner's commercial success in the performing 
arts is demonstrated by the revenues he generated from his activity in his field of 
extraordinary ability. Also, the constant demand that the Petitioner receives for his 
services and the media exposure that his work has sustained in major media throughout 
the years are additional evidence and important factors to consider for this criterion. 
The USCIS Policy Manual provides that this criterion focuses on volume of sales and box office 
receipts as a measure of an individual's commercial success in the performing arts, and that the mere 
fact that an individual has recorded and released commercial productions is insufficient, in and of 
itself, to meet the requirements of this criterion. 5 The Petitioner's assertions here concerning any 
purported "constant demand" for his services or "media exposure" are not sufficient, without more, to 
establish eligibility under this criterion. The Petitioner appears to rely on his contractual agreements 
for services, such as one he provided froml I to demonstrate that he meets this criterion because 
the agreement includes "substantial fees" to be paid to his company. The Petitioner has not provided 
4 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(8), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2. For a leading role, 
we look at whether the evidence establishes that the individual is ( or was) a leader within the organization. For a critical 
role, we look at whether the evidence establishes that the individual has contributed in a way that is of significant 
importance to the outcome of the organization's activities. 
5 See 6 USCJS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l0), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2. 
4 
an explanation of how such fees serve as evidence of the commercial success of his television 
productions for I I and the record does not include probative evidence concerning sales volumes 
for any of his other productions. The Petitioner has not met the requirements of this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documentation that the Petitioner meets at least three of the ten lesser criteria. As a result, we need 
not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. We 
therefore reserve this issue. 6 Nevertheless, we advise that we have reviewed the record in the 
aggregate, concluding that it does not support a conclusion 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. 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 made provided satisfactory 
services in his field, but it 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 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the 
decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofl-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). 
5