dismissed EB-1A Case: Film And Tv Development

U.S. Dcpartrncnl of Homeland Sccurity 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington. DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date:~u~ 0 5 2005 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(I)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
b-bGr;_& LLLhl 
<~obert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
lmmigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 3 11 53(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary 
to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, prior counsel asserted that the director failed to give sufficient weight to the reference letters 
submitted and failed to address relevant evidence submitted. These assertions will be addressed below. Prior 
counsel also indicated that a supplemental brief would be submitted within 120 days. Prior to the expiration of 
that time period, the petitioner obtained new counsel. As of this date, Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(CIS) has received nothing further from prior counsel. Current counsel submitted a brief relating to a separate 
petition but CIS has not received a brief from current counsel relating to the instant petition. The appeal will be 
adjudicated on the record of proceedings. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph 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 to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the individual 
is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or 
international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
8 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner 
must show that she has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classi.fy the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a TV and Film 
Development and Publicity Consultant. The petitioner provides the following nontechnical description of the 
job: "publicity and development consultant for TV and film, independent produceriwriter." The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through 
evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award). Barring the alien's 
receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien 
to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. The petitioner has 
submitted evidence that, she claims, meets the following criteria.' 
Docummtation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nufionaliy or internationully recognizedprizes or awards for 
excellence in the field of endeuvor. 
The director concluded that while the petitioner had demonstrated her association with award winning projects, 
she had not demonstrated that she was individually recognized or the recipient of any awards personally. Prior 
counsel does not challenge that conclusion on appeal and we concur with the director's analysis on this issue. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the jield for which clmslfioation is sou&. 
which require oulslunding achievements oftheir members, us judged by recognized national or infernational 
experrs in their disciplines or fields. 
The director concluded that the petitioner's union and professional memberships were not the type of exclusive 
memberships contemplated by this criterion. Prior counsel does not challenge this conclusion on appeal and we 
concur with the director's analysis. None of the materials regarding the associations of which the petitioner is a 
member suggest that they require outstanding achievements of their members as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their field. 
Published materials ubout the alien in pro?fessionul or mujor trade publicufions or other mdor media, 
relaling lo the alien S work in the jeld for which classijication is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, dare, und uuthor ofthe material, and any necessary trrmsldion. 
The director concluded that the published materials submitted were not primarily about her and did not appear 
in major trade publications or other major media. Prior counsel does not challenge this conclusion on appeal. 
We concur with the director's analysis on this issue. The only article primarily about the petitioner appears in 
the Sundq Mail in 1988. The record contains no evidence that this publication has a national distribution. 
Moreover, a newspaper article from 1988 is not evidence of the petitioner's sustained acclaim as of June 17, 
2003, the date the petitioner filed the instant petition. 
Evidence of the alien S participation, eilher individually or on apanel, ~1.s a judge ofthe work of others in the 
same or an ulliedjield of spec~jication for which classficution is sought. 
The director concluded that the petitioner's status as a voting member of associations in her field and her 
supervisory duties were inherent to her occupation and not indicative of national or international acclaim. 
Counsel does not challenge this conclusion on appeal and we concur with the director's analysis. The 
supervisory duties inherent to a managerial position cantlot serve to meet this criterion. We will consider the 
nature of the petitioner's role and the reputation of her employer below. Moreover, more persuasive than the 
voting privileges granted to all members of the Australian Film Institute would be selection for the exclusive 
committee that chooses the award nominees. 
I 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 4 
Finally, while the director did not discuss the petitioner's participation as a judge in the Screen Producers 
Association of Australia's emerging producer pitching competitions, the record includes little information 
regarding the significance of this competition, how many judges participate and the selection process for the 
judges. As such, we cannot determine whether this participation is indicative of or consistent with national or 
international acclaim. Moreover, it is not clear that judging the pitches is judging the work others in herfield of 
promotion. Thus, this participation cannot serve to meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientijic, .schokurly, urlisfic, athletic, or business-rekuled  contribution.^ of 
mnjor sign9cunce in the field. 
The petitioner relies on reference letters attesting to her development of successful programming as Head of 
Development at Network I0 in Australia. Noting that most of the references had worked with the petitioner, the 
director concluded that the letters were not sufficiently supported by evidence corroborating the significance of 
the petitioner's contributions. The director further concluded that the record did not reflect that the petitioner's 
work "has led to changes in the field, or that it has been used as a training tool by others in the field." 
On appeal, prior counsel asserted that the director erred in suggesting that references who have worked with the 
petitioner are biased. Counsel asserts that the letters are from renowned members of the field and their 
familiarity with the petitioner allows them to assess her contributions to the field. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted a tetter fro 
an Australian correspondent in the entertainment industry for 15 years, discussing 
accomplishments as Head of Development at the South Australian Film Corporation and as Head of 
Development at Network 10. According to Ms. the petitioner's "aggressive approach in terms of 
marking the studios, seeking and developing project ideas, offering incentives to the production community and 
entering into co-venture deals with local and international partners, turned the indust around." Specifically, 
the industry, previously in a major recession, began working at full capacity. Ms. &further explains that 
prior to the petitioner's arrival, Network 10 had experienced a takeover and the new individuals in charge found 
no projects in development. The petitioner had to aggressively co~nmission and develop programs, including the 
groundbreaking Heartbreak High followed by other bold programming decisions that achieved high ratings in 
both Australia and, in some cases, internationally. Many shows developed by the petitioner are still production 
after 10 years. Other letters from members of the entertainment industry provide similar information. 
We find that the record satisfactorily demonstrates the petitioner's influence on Australian television. The 
record contains less persuasive evidence of the petitioner's influence after 1996 when she left Network 10. 
The petitioner's U.S. projects, "The Joy House,'' "lmagine" and "Breaking the Walls of Silence: A Journey in 
Human Fertility," were not complete as of the date of filing and, as such, we cannot gauge their impact. As 
such, the evidence relating to this criterion is not evidence of sustained acclaim as of the date of filing. 
Evidence of the displuy of the alien's work in lhe field at artislic exhibitions or showcu.ves. 
The director concluded that the typical airing of programs with which the petitioner is affiliated was insufficient 
to meet this criterion. Prior counsel does not challenge this conclusion on appeal and we concur with the 
director's analysis. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in u leading or critical role for organizations or establishments thut 
have a distinguished reputation. 
The director concluded that the petitioner meets this criterion and we concur with that conclusion, although the 
record contains little evidence relating to this criterion after 1996. Even if we accepted that the petitioner meets 
the contributions criterion and this criterion despite the lack of recent evidence relating to these criteria. for the 
reasons discussed above and below, the record falls far short of establishing that the petitioner meets a third 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien hus commanded a high sulury or other signiJicantly high remunerulionj~r services, 
in relation to others in thefirld. 
Initially, prior counsel asserted that the petitioner was "one of the highest paid female executives in Australia" 
while Head of Program Development at Network 10. In response to the director's request for additional 
evidence, the petitioner submitted evidence of the following gross income in Australian dollars: $83,983 in 
1995, $82,663 in 1996. In 1994, the petitioner's taxable income was $58,418. The director concluded that the 
petitioner had not established that she received a significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the same 
occupation. 
On appeal, prior counsel asserted that the petitioner submitted statistical charts reflecting that she was one of the 
highest paid female TV executives in Australia. Prior counsel further asserted that the director failed to mention 
this evidence. 
In addition to evidence of her own salary, the petitioner submitted advertisement for an AusFilm commissioner 
in Los Angeles at a salary of $100,000, Chief Executive for Screen West in Australia with a salary range of 
$9 1,299 - $98,163 (presumably Australian dollars), Director of Production Development in Australia with a 
salary range of $79,687 to $86,553 (presumably in Australian dollars) and Children's Series Producer - 
Television in Australia at a salary of $100,000 (presumably in Australian dollars). These salaries reflect that the 
petitioner's salary was within the normal range for her occupation. The petitioner also submitted income 
distribution charts for the entire television services industry. This data is simply not useful in evaluating the 
petitioner's remuneration for her specific occupation. More specifically, it is not useful to compare the 
petitioner's remuneration with those working in menial technical positions in the television industry. Thus, we 
uphold the director's ultimate conclusion that the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence qf commerciul successes in the performing urts, us shown by box ofice recebts or record, cassette, 
compuct disk, or video sales. 
Prior counsel asserted that the petitioner meets this criterion based on the longevity of the television series she 
promoted or approved for development. The director concluded that other than the reference letters, the record 
contains no evidence that the petitioner was primarily or largely responsible for the success of the programs with 
which she was associated. 
As discussed above, on appeal prior counsel asserted that the director should have given more weight to the 
reference letters. Prior counsel further asserted that the director failed to consider that the petitioner "has 
included in her client roster, award-winning actorand that she was largely responsible for his recent 
commercial success." 
Page 6 
We do not contest the commercial success of several programs with which the petitioner is affiliated. While we 
give the reference letters due consideration, not every individual associated with a commercially successful 
project can be credited with the project's success. The petitioner did not submit evidence that she is included in 
the credits for these projects. While promotion is important for commercial success, the main credit goes to the 
producers, directors and main cast members. Moreover, the most persuasive evidence of the petitioner's 
promotion of a commercially successful project is her work on "Beyond 2000" and "Beyond Tomorrow." The 
petitioner worked on these projects more than 10 years prior to filing the petition. Thus, that work is not 
evidence of sustained acclaim as of the date of filing. 
The record does not support prior counsel's assertion that the petitioner is at ail responsible for- 
recent commercial success. The record contains a letter from ~r. who asserts only that he has 
collaborated with the petitioner on promoting charity events. He makes no mention of the petitioner 
contributing to the success of his character on "West Wing." In res onse to the director's request for additional 
evidence, prior counsel references a letter purportedly fro m The letter provides: 
I met [the petitioner] in 1999 while consulting with mutual clienton the successful 
Emmy winning show "The West Wing" for NBC. She worked as a consultant oehalf 
and I found her to be extremely helpful and dedicated. Her insight and expertise was 
immeasurable to the success of the show and Rob's career 
The record contains no evidence that the petitioner is credited with any technical, executive or consultin role 
for any episode of "The West Wing." The record does not reveal that the petitioner ever worked as Mr b agent. Rather, as stated above, Mr states only that she assisted him promoting his charity events. 
Regardless, the letter purportedly from Mr. is unsigned and, thus, has no evidentiary value. He 
assertions are not supported by statements from ~ror the writers, producers or directors of "The West 
Wing" explaining the petitioner's role for that show. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not demonstrated the significance of her personal contribution to the 
commercial success of projects with which she has been affiliated other than green lighting them. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate that the 
alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself as a development 
and publicity consultant to such an extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence indicates 
that the petitioner shows talent as a development and publicity consultant, but is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her field. Therefore, the petitioner has 
not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 3 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
Page 7 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.