dismissed EB-1A Case: Film And Television

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 24, 2023 In Re: 28060386 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a 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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirement for the requested classification 
through evidence of a major, internationally recognized award or meeting at least three of the ten 
alternative evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3). 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 ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec . 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability, a petitioner (or anyone on the 
petitioner's behalf) must establish that they: 
• Have extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business , or athletics; 
• Seek to enter the United States to continue work in their area of extraordinary ability; and that 
• Their entry into the United States will prospectively substantially benefit the United States. 
Extraordinary ability must be demonstrated by evidence of sustained national or international acclaim 
as well as extensive documentation that their achievements have been recognized in the field. Section 
203(b)(l) of the Act. 
The implementing regulation further states that 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." It also 
sets forth a multi-part analysis. A petitioner can demonstrate international recognition of their 
achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized 
award). If such evidence is unavailable, then they must alternatively provide evidence that meets at 
least three of the ten listed criteria, which call for evidence about other awards they may have received, 
published material about them in qualifying media, and their authorship of scholarly articles, among 
other types of evidence. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2),(3). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination, assessing whether the record shows that the 
individual possesses the acclaim and recognition required for this highly exclusive immigrant visa 
classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 l 0) ( discussing a two-part review 
where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, 
considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 
126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a television and film director and producer. She holds a master of science degree in 
cinematography and television production from the .-I------,I University of Culture and Arts 
L I 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she 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 one of the evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating to her authorship of scholarly articles in her field, and we 
agree. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she also meets five additional evidentiary criteria. 1 After 
reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we conclude that she does not meet the initial evidence 
requirement for this classification and is not eligible as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
Documentation ofthe alien 's receipt oflesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field ofendeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
In order to meet this criterion, a petitioner must establish their receipt a prize or award, and that the 
prize or award was given for excellence in their field. In addition, it must be shown that the prize or 
award is nationally or internationally recognized in their field. 
1 The Petitioner does not contest the Director's conclusion that she does not meet the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). An issue not raised on appeal is waived. See, e.g., Matter of O-R-E-, 28 
I&N Dec. 330, 336 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing Matter ofR-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657,658 n.2 (BIA 2012)). 
So we will not consider whether she meets that criterion in this decision. 
2 
Here, the Petitioner submitted evidence relating to several awards for films or programs. The Director 
I 
determined that 
I
she received a 2007 Teletriumph award in the category 
from the Television Industry Committee (TIC) of Ukrai.._n_e_f_o_r_th_e_t_e_le-v-is_i_on_p_ro_g_r_a_m_.
I Ibut that the evidence does not establish that it is nationally or internationally 
recognized. However, we disagree in both respects. The evidence sufficiently demonstrates that the 
Teletriumph awards are Ukraine's only television awards and are presented jointly by TIC, a 
professional association in the television industry, and the national government body with oversight 
of the television industry. As such, they are nationally recognized in the Petitioner's field. 
However, the evidence does not demonstrate by a preponderance that the Petitioner received the 
referenced 
Teletriumph award. The evidence relating to this award includes a page from TIC's 
website, fhotographs of the award trophy and the Petitioner holding it, and a letter froml II _ a filmmaker from Kazakhstan. The website states that the recipient was '"New Channel," 
and does not mention the Petitioner. And although a caption to the photograph of the Petitioner 
holding the trophy indicates that she received it, this assertion is not supported in the record. While a 
letter from director of the Petitioner's former employer '--------~ 
'-----...----~_in~U~kr_a_in_e-; states that she worked as the director of "the awarding concert-
ceremony._________ _." his statement that she andD received the Teletriumph award for 
this work directly contradicts the evidence from the awarding entity's website. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that the Director did not properly consider the awards received 
by several films in which she states she was involved. These include 
I IAs noted by the Director, the evidence do._e_s_n_o_ts_,h_o_w-th_a_t-th_e_P-et-it-io_n_e~r 
received an award for her involvement in the making of these movies. While the Petitioner argues 
that directors and producers play an integral part in the success of films, it is the awarding entities who 
decide which individuals or groups to recognize. Further, the section of the Petitioner's response to 
the Director's request for evidence (RFE) that she refers to on appeal includes several webpages and 
articles about both of these movies, including listings of the individuals who had important roles in 
their production, but none of this material mentions the Petitioner. 
Regarding two additional awards claimed by the Petitioner, these are evidenced by a certificate and 
badge given to the Petitioner by a committee called "Revolution Guard" for "outstanding contribution 
to the liberation of Ukraine" and a photograph of a medal or pin from the Professional Football League 
with the notation" l OYears." On appeal, the Petitioner refers only tol Iletter for support 
that the certificate and badge from the "Revolution Guard" committee were given to her for excellence 
in the field offilmmaking, and as with the Teletriumph award, he does not claim to have been involved 
with the awarding entity or the project for which the Petitioner asserts she received this award. As for 
the Professional Football League award, the Petitioner asserts that since she produced work regarding 
or for the Professional Football League, the pin must have been given to her in recognition of that 
work. Beyond a statement from her former employer that she served as a director for an award 
ceremony held by the league, there is no further evidence in the record regarding this medal or pin. In 
addition, we agree with the Director that the record is insufficient to show why the Petitioner received 
either of these awards, and add that it is also insufficient to show that they are nationally or 
internationally recognized. 
For all of the reasons given above, the Petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
3 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions ofmajor 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), a petitioner must establish that not only 
have they made original contributions, but also that the contributions 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. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35. 
The Petitioner asserts that she has made three original contributions to the field of movie and television 
production and direction. The first is a "vanishing effect" she states that she created for a concert 
movie for the band I I in 2008. In his letter, singer and musician I I 
describes a "unique technical solution" employed by the Petitioner in creating this concert movie 
which made the performer disappear and reappear elsewhere on the stage. Whilel ldoes 
not claim to possess technical expertise in lighting, cinematography, production, or direction of 
movies, he states that he has worked with many creative producers and directors over the course of his 
career, and that he had not observed other directors "achieve anything which would be even close to 
what she did." He goes on to state that other bands and directors thereafter used this technical solution, 
but he does not provide any specifics. 
Another letter which addresses this claimed original contribution was written byl I a 
photographer. She writes that this effect was invented by the Petitioner and was "trnly innovative," 
and names two other video directors who subsequently "borrowed" it from the Petitioner for use in 
their own works. Also,I lstates in his letter that the Petitioner was the director for the 
television version of the I I show and edited the concert film, but he does not mention the 
Petitioner's use of the effect discussed in the other two letters. 
While this evidence, particularly! I letter, shows by a preponderance that the Petitioner 
worked as a director for thel !concert movie, it does not establish that she invented the 
"vanishing effect" used in the movie as she claims. Notably, the two writers who make this assertion 
were not involved with the concert or its filming in any respect, and thus have no first-hand knowledge 
of the details of its production and direction. More importantly, their claims that this effect was the 
Petitioner's innovation is not supported by documentary evidence, which given the writer's lack of 
first-hand knowledge or technical expertise, and thus the credibility of these letters, is particularly 
needed. Depending on the specificity, detail, and credibility of a letter, we may give the document 
more or less persuasive weight in a proceeding. The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has 
held that testimony should not be disregarded simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of 
S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) (citing cases). The Board also held, however: "We not 
only encourage, but require the introduction of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, 
where available." Id. If testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater 
need for the petitioner to submit corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 
1998). As the record lacks such evidence, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not shown 
that her use of the "vanishing effect" was an original contribution to the field of film production and 
direction, or that it was of major significance. 
4 
Another original contribution claimed by the Petitioner is her book 
I IThe translated excerpts showing ....th_e_t-it-le-p-ag_e_a_n_d_1__n-tr_o_d_u-ct-io-n-to_. 
the book are sufficient to establish that the Petitioner authored the book, and that it is a scholarly study 
of Ukrainian films made during the period referenced in the title. On appeal, the Petitioner submits 
new evidence consisting of a statement fromI I that this book "is included in the mandatory 
program of students at the faculty of cinema and television from 09.01.2017." Because she was put 
on notice and given a reasonable opportunity to provide this evidence, we will not consider it for the 
first time on appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(ll) (requiring all requested evidence be submitted 
together at one time); Matter of Soriano, 19 T&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) ( declining to consider 
new evidence submitted on appeal because "the petitioner was put on notice of the required evidence 
and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the denial"). However, even if 
we were to consider this statement, it is not sufficient to show that the book has been widely 
implemented or had remarkable influence in the field of filmmaking. 
The Petitioner also refers to an article from the website of Woman magazine which discusses her book 
and includes a picture of her holding the book. We first note that this article includes neither the date 
on which it was published or posted or the name of the author who wrote it, thus lowering its 
evidentiary value. Further, the submitted content of the article, which indicates that the book is 
intended for professionals in the movie industry and is original since it fills a gap in literature about 
this period of filmmaking in Ukraine, does not suggest that it has already been influential in the field 
offilmmaking. Similarly, a letter froml lwho states that he is a journalist, producer, and 
radio and television host, describes the book in detail and comments upon its originality, but then 
arrives at the conclusion that it is "an original contribution of major significance to the field of 
filmmaking" without support in the record. Repeating the language of the statute or regulations does 
not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof, as specifics are an important indication of whether the 
Petitioner meets this criterion. 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). 
Finally, based solely upon a letter from I I the Petitioner asserts that her teaching of a course 
on animation directing at the school is an original contribution of major significance to her field. As 
the record lacks evidence of the originality and significance of this eight-month course, this assertion 
is unfounded. 
Based on the above analysis, we conclude that the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) 
This criterion requires a Petitioner to establish that their work has been displayed, and that the display 
took place in artistic exhibitions or showcases. In her decision, the Director noted that the evidence 
submitted about the films ~-----------------------~did not 
show that she was listed in the credits for these movies, and thus that the display of these works at film 
festivals was not the display of her work. On appeal, the Petitioner acknowledges the Director's 
conclusion, but states only that a cinematography professional's work is displayed at film festivals, 
and that the evidence previously submitted showed that works produced by her were displayed at film 
5 
festivals. This evidence includes screen prints from websites including imdb.com and Wikipedia.com, 
some of which list the cast and crew. The Petitioner's name is not listed in this evidence. 
The evidence of record also includes the letter from ....l ____ ___.I which the Petitioner asserts on 
appeal "provides detailed information regarding [the Petitioner's] work as a creative producer and her 
films which were displayed at a number of international movie festivals." As previously stated,D
I ldoes not indicate that he was involved with the making of these films, so his accounts of the 
Petitioner's activities and roles are not based upon first-hand knowledge or observation of that work 
and are thus oflittle evidentiary value. In addition, despite the assertion that his letter provides detailed 
information regarding her work on these films, it simply lists a job title for each film. Even if the 
materials above showed that the Petitioner was credited for work in these films, the record lacks 
sufficiently detailed evidence showing that it was her work that was displayed at film festivals. 
Accordingly, she has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien 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 qualify under this criterion, a petitioner must establish that they played either a leading or critical 
role for an organization or establishment, or a department or division thereof, and that that 
organization, establishment, department, or division has or had a distinguished reputation. For a 
leading role, a title and appropriate matching duties may help to show that a role is or was leading. In 
the case of a critical role, the evidence should show that the individual contributed in a way that is of 
significant importance to the outcome of the organization's or establishment's activities. It is not the 
title of an individual's role that makes it critical, but the individual's performance in that role. See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2, Appendices tab, www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
Here, the Petitioner asserts that she played a critical role for both I I Regarding her 
role atl !neither of the materials she references demonstrates that her role as the creator and 
instructor of a class on animation directing was critical for the universit . The first, signed bye::]
I I confirms that she created and directed the course and tha was leased with her 
performance in this role. The second letter is from director and producer~ ____ ___. a director 
and producer who states that he is a graduate ofl land opines that the course taught by the 
Petitioner "played a critical role in the curriculum of the University." He also lists several reasons 
why he believes that the Petitioner's role was critical to the university, including that it allowed the 
university to expand its student base. However,~ ~ does not explain the source of this 
information, as he does not claim to be employed~ ....,..._-_-_-_-_-......or have any relationship with it other 
than as a graduate, and he does not claim to have observed the Petitioner's class or its impact on the 
university. While letters from those with personal knowledge of a petitioner's leading or critical role 
for an organization or establishment are particularly helpful in demonstrating qualification for this 
criterion, letters from those with no personal knowledge are not. Id. 
._______ __, letter about the Petitioner's role forDstates that she was employed by the 
company as a director and creative producer since 2004. We first note that despite this statement, the 
letter is unclear about the dates of her employment. The letter goes on to state that the Petitioner 
worked on multiple productions for the company between 2005 and 2007, and then goes on to describe 
projects she completed with various other channels and companies between 2005 and 2008, and then 
6 
I 
between 2012 and 2014. I kioes not indicate whether the Petitioner remained employed 
withc=]while working on there projects, nor does he explain the gap between 2008 and 2012 or if 
or when she ceased working for 
Idescribes several projects on which the Petitioner worked, and states that her role for 
LJwas critical because she led the company's "most complex a[nd] prestigious projects, all of which 
resulted in the highest ratings of our broadcasts. However, he does not provide any ratings data to 
support this assertion, whether for these projects or for the company overall. He also credits the 
Petitioner with directing thel broject, but his claims that this resulted in her and 
Dreceiving the Teletriumph award are not supported in the evidence, as discussed above concerning 
the lesser awards criterion. In addition, he cites the Petitioner's use of an overhead camera on rails as 
innovative and an example of her technical solutions which were "quite ahead of their time," but does 
not refer to evidence supporting this statement or explain how her use of this technique was critical to 
LJbusiness. As such, this letter is insufficient to show that her role was critical toD 
The Petitioner also relies uponl !statements in attempting to establish thatOhas a 
distinguished reputation, but a reputation is a reflection of the views and opinions of others in a certain 
field. For this reason,I I assertions alone are insufficient, and they are not supported 
by evidence that others in the filmmaking industry consider the company as marked by eminence, 
distinction, or excellence. Id. Further, while he claims thaO is the largest television and media 
production company in Eastern Europe, this is also not supported with documentary evidence, and the 
size of an organization is not determinative when considering its reputation. Id. 
For all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that she 
meets this criterion. 
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. Although she claims to meet an additional 
evidentiary criterion relating to published material about her and her work, because she has met only 
one of the other criteria she claims, she cannot meet the requisite three criterion needed to satisfy the 
initial evidence requirement for this classification. Accordingly, we need not reach, and therefore 
reserve this issue. 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 the applicant did not otherwise meet their burden of proof). Although we need not 
provide the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20, we have 
nevertheless reviewed the entire record and conclude that it does not establish that the Petitioner has 
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 those 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 ofPrice, 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 
7 
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 that she is one of the small percentage who have 
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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8