dismissed EB-1A Case: Film And Television Production

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7072339 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG . 31, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an Executive Vice President (Producer), seeks classification as an individual 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner meets any of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this classification, of 
which she must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she submitted probative and credible evidence that she meets 
four out of the ten criteria and is otherwise qualified for the benefit sought. 
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, the Petitioner has not met this burden 
and we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) 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 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 that 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 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). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true." Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 {AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner has been emroyed as Executive Vice President (Producer) lo~ I 
I an independent film and television production company, since 2017. 
Previously, re worked in the United Kingdom television industry in production roles tori I 
I ~. I, andl I 
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 Petitioner initially claimed to have met five criteria, summarized 
below: 
I (iii), Published material about the alien in professional or major media; 
I (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
I (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments; 
I (ix), High salary or other significantly high remuneration; and 
I (x), Commercial successes in the performing arts. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not meet any of the claimed evidentiary criteria. On 
appeal, the Petitioner does not contest the Director's conclusions regarding criterion (x), relating to 
2 
commercial success in the performing arts. Therefore, we consider that issue to be waived.1 The 
Petitioner maintains that she meets the other four criteria claimed previously. 
We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that the Petitioner has established 
that she meets the criteria relating to published materials, leading or critical roles, and high salary. 
With respect to the published materials criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the Petitioner submitted a 
total of nine articles published by television and film industry publications Deadline Hollywood 
(www.deadline.com), RealScreen (www.realscreen.com), Television Business International 
(www.tbivision.com), and Broadcast magazine (www.broadcastnow.co.uk). The Director determined 
that the submitted articles are not about the Petitioner, noting that "the majority of the articles 
announced her change in employment status" and that "articles that are not about the alien do not meet 
this regulatory criterion." Although the Director correctly noted that each of the articles publicized 
the Petitioner's hiring by a new employer, they provide sufficient information relating to her and her 
work in the field to satisfy the plain langua e of the criterion, and included the required title, date and 
author of the material. For example, the 2017 Deadline Hollywood article, titled I I 
mentions some of thl Petitioner's expected 
responsibilitie,µn_lli/r new position, her previous work with~ I ~ I I I I andl__J and includes quotes from the Petitioner and .... ,-_-_-_-_-_-_-_~_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__._,,~ executive 
staff about her hiring. 
The Director further found that the Petitioner provided "no evidence" in support of her claim that the 
submitted articles were published by professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
The Director noted that "information submitted from the bulk of the biogs and websites have little 
probative information for meeting this criterion," without acknowledging the Petitioner's supporting 
evidence pertaining to the specific online publications submitted. While the Petitioner did not submit 
sufficient evidence to establish that all four publications qualify as professional or major trade 
publications or other major media, the evidence is sufficient to establish that the articles published by 
Deadline Hollywood and Broadcast magazine meet all requirements of this criterion. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet the leading or critical roles criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), observing that the submitted letters from persons familiar with her work 
"fall short of providing probative information that specifically addressed how [her] role for the 
organizations was leading or critical." However, the Director did not discuss the submitted letters 
individually. Upon review, we agree that some of the testimonial evidence lacks information needed 
to establish that specific roles the Petitioner held were "leading or critical" to the respective 
organizations that employed her. We conclude that the Petitioner nevertheless demonstrated that she 
holds a leading role as Executive Vice President of .__ _______ _,and also established her 
current employer's distinguished reputation. 
1 See Matter of R-A-M-, 25 l&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 {BIA 2012) (stating that when a filing party fails to appeal an issue 
addressed in an adverse decision, that issue is waived). See also Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 
(11th Cir. 2005), citing United States v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-
CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiff's claims were abandoned as he failed to 
raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
3 
Finally, with respect to the high salary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), the Director 
acknowledged evidence of the Petitioner's 2018 earnings as well as her submission of various 
published wage surveys for producers and directors. The Director noted that the Petitioner's earnings 
in 2018 were high in comparison to those reported in the submitted surveys, but found she "has 
performed in what appear to be freelance capacities" and observed there was insufficient evidence of 
her "earnings over a period of time." The evidence reflects the Petitioner was a full-time salaried 
employee in 2018 and last worked in a freelance capacity in 2004. The Director also noted that the 
Petitioner did not provide "documentary evidence of the earnings of those in the Petitioner's 
occupation performing similar work at the top level of the field." Such evidence is not required to 
meet the plain language of this criterion, but rather should be considered in a final merits 
determination. The Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to satisfy this criterion. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has demonstrated that she meets the requisite three evidentiary criteria. 
While the Petitioner claims to meet a fourth criterion (relating to her original contributions in the field) 
we will consider that claim together with the totality of the evidence in the context of the final merits 
determination below. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner submitted the requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate whether she has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, her sustained national or international acclaim and 
that she is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that her 
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 if their successes are sufficient to demonstrate that they have extraordinary ability in the 
field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 2 While the Petitioner has had success in the entertainment industry, 
the evidence does not establish that she has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the 
small percentage at the top of her field. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
The Petitioner submitted evidence reflecting her professional background. This evidence indicates 
that she has steadily worked in the United Kingdom I I television industry, initially in a freelance 
capacity, and then joining I in 2004, where she was eventually promoted to the position of 
Director of Development. After four years with I I where she created and commissioned the 
scripted reality series~-----~· she spent three years as an executive producer atl I I I where her most acclaimed project wasl I a seven-part documentary 
produced to Subsequently, the Petitioner spent one year working as a producer 
tori ~ as head of television before joining! I in 2012 as a commissioning editor, 
where her most high-profile project was oversight and expansion of the scripted television series I I 
2 See also 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 AD11-14 4 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (stating that USCIS officers should then evaluate the 
evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, the required high level of expertise for the immigrant classification). 
4 
c===lsince 2017, she has worked as the Executive Vice President (Producer) tori 
~ in the United States. ....._ __ _ 
As mentioned above, the Petitioner has been the subject of published articles in trade publications, she 
has held a leading role for an organization with a distinguished reputation, and she has earned a high 
salary. In addition, we have also considered evidence relating to her original contributions to the 
television industry. The record, however, does not demonstrate that she has reached the very top of 
the field or that her achievements reflect a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by 
Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
As noted, some of the Petitioner's career transitions have received media coverage in television 
industry ~ublications. The Petitioner submitted a total of nine articles, includin five that reported her 
hiring byl lin 2017, one that reported her hiring by in 2012 two that 
reported her hiring byl I in 2011, and one that reported her hiring by....._ _____ ~ in 
September 2008. While the Petitioner established that two of the four websites that published these 
articles (Deadline Hollywood and Broadcast) qualify as major trade publications, the record does not 
include adequate support for the Petitioner's claim that this evidence amounts to a "vast array of 
published materials" about the Petitioner and her more than 15 years of work in the field, or that the 
nature and scope of this industry media coverage submitted demonstrates that she is "at the pinnacle 
of the field." Rather, the record suggests that these types of brief news articles are routinely published 
when television producers move from one network or production company to another. The articles 
mark the Petitioner's success and advancement in her field, but do not demonstrate that she has 
achieved sustained national or international acclaim as a television producer. 
The Petitioner also provided articles from publications such as The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline 
Hollywood, The Daily Mail, The Mirror, and The Sun. Although the Petitioner did not claim that these 
articles are about her or that they otherwise satisfy the published materials criterion, she emphasizes 
that they nevertheless establish that she "is routinely referenced and uoted" in major media articles. 
For exam le, the Petitioner submitted three 2019 articles abou s upcoming development 
of.....__~~-----~ co-produced reality show....._ ____ ~ These articles mention in 
passing t at t e et1t1oner will serve as one of three executive producers for the program. As a 
television producer who produces or commissions programming for national networks, the Petitioner 
works in an industry in which most, if not all, projects receive media coverage. Without evidence that 
sets her apart from others in this field, she has not established how being briefly referenced or quoted 
in media articles about her shows demonstrates that that she is recognized as a television producer 
who is among "that small percentage who [has] risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Much of the remaining documentation in the record is testimonial evidence addressing either the 
Petitioner's original contributions in the field, and/or her leading or critical roles with her employers. 
With respect to her ori inal artistic-related contributions, the Petitioner indicates that she: (1) 
introduced the television enre in ~nited Kingdom based on her role in 
developing and commissioning.....__~--~-forl__J(2) introduced the use of I I 
rigs in a commercial business documentary series based on her role in produci~ I 
tori la □ 1 (3) "revolutionized digital programming aroundl__Jtelevision" by 
expanding Ito include digital content while working as a commissioning editor at 
5 
,___ __ ~I At issue in the final merits determination is not the nature or significance of the Petitioner's 
contributions, but rather the extent of the acclaim she has earned in her field as a result of them. 
I I currently an executive producer at l I· states that be met the 
Pet1t1oner during his previous role as Senior Vice President ofl I He 
explains that in the mid-2000s,I I television was increasingly ~opular in the United States, 
but there were not yet any comparable programs in the United Kingdom. I I indicates that 
the Petitioner "instinctively knew that Britain was ready" for this type of programming, chose I I 
I Ito develop the program, and "established herself as a trailblazer creating! I 
which took an American-st le glamourousI I setting intol I in Britain." He 
notes thatL...-....----------1 ran for two season. He further explains that its influence remains because 
it created the,___ ___ ~ genre in the United Kingdom and "paved the way for consequent series, 
both in terms of tone techni ue and even characters," pointing to the popular serie~ I 
I k and ........... -~~--' which aired on other networks. I !concludes that the 
Petitioner's "origina contri utIons to this genre have firmly planted her at the very top of our field." 
The Petitioner submitted an article titled I I published by The Guardian 
in 2011 which primarily discusses! ( which, at the time, had recently received a 
BAFTA award. The author interviewed producers and directors from the show's creator, I I I. I a □ J states that 1 I began the UK trend for these h brids back in 2006 
wheril-==· =--_._asked it to make a British version of the hit US sho 
§
which resulted irl I. The Guardian article goes on to state tha 
while "not a ratings hit. set a pattern for programs that followed." This article support 
s claim thatl J was original in the U.K. television industry and is considered 
influential in the genre, but does not support a conclusion that the Petitioner garnered national acclaim 
based on her contributions to the program, or that those contributions "firmly planted her at the very 
top" of the field. 
,___ _____ _.ltormer creative director and co-CEO at provided a letter 
discussing the Petitioner's work as producer onL...;-------,.... _ __Ja ,___ __ __,documentary series 
which aired on the U.K. 's I in 2011. .___ __ ___, describes the format of the series as 
"groundbreaking" noting that it was the first program "to use I I rigs in a commercial 
business and in an 'entertainment' feature." She also notes that the Petitioner incorporated a crew in 
combination with the format in order to provide viewers with "unprecedented footage" 
of the L------1'"----~,__ _ ____J describes the show as a "critical and commercial triumph" and 
winner of a........,.. __ -,--_ __,Television Award. She also indicates tha~ l"went on 
to inspire and pave the way for other productions." I I discussed the originality of the 
techniques the Petitioner employed and describes her as a "renowned producer" with "extraordinary" 
talent but does not indicate that her role as a producer tori !garnered her national 
acclaim in the field. 
Nor does the supporting evidence establish that the Petitioner received significant industry recognition 
for her work on The Petitioner rovided a 2011 article ubl ished by The Guardian 
titled which mentions D 
I I but was published before the show aired. The author interviewed,___ __ _.executives 
who discuss the advantages of the program format, but the article does not mention the Petitioner. The 
6 
Petitioner submitted evidence thatl I received some media attention when~I ---~ 
commissioned! Ito produce it in 2010 (from Birmingham Post and Broadcast), but the 
submitted articles also predate the airing of the show. These articles mention the Petitioner's executive 
producer role and the show's original! !format, but do not demonstrate that she 
received wide industry recognition or acclaim for her work on the series. The Petitioner provided 
evidence of the show's.___ ____ _.TV Award as .___ _______ _.' from Digital Spy, 
and an article about the show's cast published by Marie Claire, but these articles do not mention the 
Petitioner. 
The third and final original contribution thl Petitioner :7entions is her ex,ansion of I ~s 
original format to include digital content.~-___ _.Jsl J provided a letter explaining 
that the Petitioner joined the network after the show's original creation but "took the helm" as 
commissioning editor and expanded it to include a summer spinoff series that appeared on I I 
Os digital channel and achieved "some of the highest ratings on our network." I I also 
discusses the Petitioner's building of a "full digital brand" front lby creating "a series 
of.___ _______ __. marketing and merchandise" including a live music platform, a fitness 
DVD, and other spinoffs that were shown on U.S. and Australian television. She indicates that the 
Petitioner "expanded the program's very "English' reality television brand into an international and 
cross platform one, which is truly a unique contribution to our field."I I concludes that the 
Petitioner "is at the top of her field for commissioning television productions," and has "pioneered 
I I within the United Kingdom." 
The Petitioner submitted two articles about thel 111 spinoff. One of them 
mentions the Petitioner by name and includes a brief quote from her~ot demonstrate that she 
garnered national or international acclaim by commissionin this di ital s inoff to the o ular show. 
The Petitioner also provided an article titl't'-'-..__ ____ _,,_ _________ ~~~----1...., 
published by Mail Online, which discusses~----~s receipt of a BAFTA award for 
I ITV Show in 2013. The article provides reactions to the win from 
other attendees at the awards show but does not mention the Petitioner or indicate that she was a 
recipient of the award. 3 
Considered individually and collectively, the evidence establishes that the Petitioner has earned 
recognition from those who have worked with her orl I television programming, but 
does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has made impactful or influential contributions in the greater 
field reflecting a "career of acclaimed work in the field," garnering the required sustained national or 
international acclaim. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Here, the letters 
do not provide sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include sufficient 
corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner is viewed by the overall field, rather than by a 
solicited few, as being among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
3 Although! lwon a BAFTA during the Petitioner's tenure as thel lcommissioning editor for the 
show, the record does not establish that she was credited as a producer or executive producer of the show, nor does she 
claim that she has been the recipient of this or any other industry award. 
7 
The Petitioner r · ce to su art her claimhat she bas be;d leadion or critical roles 
withl I. I I and _ . ] The Petitioner 
submitted two letters from..___,,_--,---------,---,----,------,-_____,.__. CEO,~-----' which are sufficient to 
establish that she was hired in a critical role for this company as Executive Vice President. 
Specifically, the evidence reflects that she was engaged to adapt the international group's British 
television formats for the Uni market and to expand the group's programming slate on 
American television channels. at the Petitioner has already secured co-productions 
between nd ~=-----1-'J'L.J.l.L.J .................... ...ui...-----,1 andl I and secured developments with D 
and includin the which Is based on a U.K. series. Based on the scope 
of her role with~------~' the Petitioner has established that she contributes in a way 
that is of significant importance to the outcome of the group's activities in the United States. 
The submitted testimonials addressing her work atl l I I andl I are 
limited to discussing only or two of her individual projects and do not sufficiently demonstrate how 
her role was leading or critical to these organizations as a whole. In fact, she initially relied on a letter 
from to establish that she met this criterion, but I !who currently works 
for appears to have only worked with the Petitioner as a fellow commissioning editor at 
,___ __ __,in the past and did not establish that she is in a position to confirm the Petitioner's lejdingl 
or critical roles with other organizations. Although the Petitioner also submitted letters from 
I I of Lr----,.......J I I (formerly of I I, and I I, who worked 
with her a he rimaril discussed the contributions she made td 11 I I I and~ _____ _., respectively. Their letters did not provide sufficient detail regarding 
the overall significance of her contributions on the outcome of their respective employers' activities 
to support a conclusion that her roles were leading or critical to these organizations as a whole. 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not shown that her employment with these entities was reflective of, or 
resulted in, widespread acclaim from her field or was commensurate with being at the very top of the 
field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
As noted, the Petitioner demonstrated that she earned a high salary in 2018 when comparing her 
earnings (approximately $311,000) to reported earnings of "directors and producers" in the same 
geographic area. Based on the information accompanying the submitted Department of Labor wage 
surveys, it appears that the data collected includes, for example, the salaries of directors and producers 
of radio and stage productions, as well as individuals like the Petitioner, who produces television 
programming for national networks. As such, it is unclear that the provided wage information allows 
us to meaningfully compare her earnings to those of the highest earners in her specific field. See 
Matter of Price, 20 l&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 salary of other NHL 
defensemen). In addition, the Petitioner has only documented her past earnings for one year, the year 
preceding the filing of the petition. Therefore, while the evidence may demonstrate some degree of 
recognition of her achievements in the field, she has not submitted evidence showing her earnings 
have consistently been at a level reflecting that she among the small percentage at the very top of her 
field. 
8 
The record as a whole, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Petitioner's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended 
for individuals already at the top of their respective fields. The evidence reflects that the Petitioner 
has consistently worked as a producer or commissioning editor for television programs with a national 
audience, but she has not supported her extraordinary ability claim with extensive documentation 
recognizing her achievements in the field. USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the 
major league level do not automatically meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual 
of "extraordinary ability." Price, 20 l&N Dec. at 954. While the record shows that the Petitioner is a 
successful producer and commissioning editor who has worked on several well-received television 
projects, the totality of the evidence does not indicate she has sustained national or international acclaim 
and is among the small percentage at the top of her field. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
C. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Petitioner received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant 
visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying 
an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard - statute, regulations, 
and case law. Many Form 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior 
nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); 
IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 
F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, our authority 
over the USCIS service centers, the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petition, is comparable 
to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has 
approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an individual, we are not bound to follow that finding 
in the adjudication of another immigration petition. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 
98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
111. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that she is eligible to be classified 
as an individual of extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(1){A) of the Act. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9