dismissed EB-1A Case: Film And Writing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 7880571 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR. 17, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , an author and screenwriter , seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )( 1 )(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b )(1 )(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 , determining that the Petitioner did 
not establish that she satisfied any of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this classification, of which 
she must meet at least three. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
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)(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 
extensi ve 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 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a published novelist and a screenwriter for several Chinese television series. She 
also wrote and directed the feature filml lwhich was released internationally in 2015. 
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 submitted evidence relating to six of the ten initial evidentiary 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) but did not establish that she met any of them. On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that she meets four criteria, relating to lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
awards, published materials in major media, judging the work of others, and commercial success in 
the performing arts. 1 After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated that she meets at least three criteria. 
Documentation of the individual'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) 
In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that the Beneficiary's prizes or awards 
are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. 2 Relevant 
considerations regarding whether the basis for granting the prizes or awards was excellence in the field 
include, but are not limited to, the criteria used to grant the prizes or awards, the national or 
1 We note that the Director determined that the Petitioner initially submitted evidence related to the authorship of scholarly 
articles and leading or critical roles criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(vi) and (viii), respectively, but did not satisfy these 
criteria. The Petitioner does not contest these issues on appeal and therefore we deem them to be waived. See, e.g., ~\fatter 
of M-A-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009). 
2 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form T-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADl 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
2 
international significance of the prizes or awards in the field, and the number of awardees or prize 
recipients as well as any limitations on competitors. 3 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that she meets this criterion based on the following awards:4 
• 2016 l ~ Award for Best Screenwriter at the ,__ _______ _.Film Festival 
(awarded to Petitioner) 
• 20161 IFilm Award for Excellent Feature Film (awarded to the film~I ____ ___,. 
With respect to the I I award, the Petitioner previously submitted: a copy of the award 
certificate naming her as the winning screenwriter; a screenshot from the website of the n 
I \ Film Festival held in 2018; an article about the closing ceremony of the I ~ 
I Film Festival which mentions the Petitioner's receipt of the screenwriting award; an entry 
regarding the ,__ ____ ___. A ward" from the online Chinese encyclopedia Baike 
(www.baike.com/wiki); and a letter froml I attesting to the award's national recognition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides a second published article regarding the closing ceremony of the 
,__ _______ ~!Film Festival. 
The evidence is sufficient to establish that the Petitioner was the recipient of the 2016~1 ____ _. 
award for screenwriting for the filml I However, we agree with the Director that the 
record does not establish that it is a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence. 
The information provided on the festival's website indicates tha~ IFilm Festival "is 
the first national film festival in New China I I" and that it has been held bi-annually 
since 1992. The website farther reflects that the film festival il "1mided hv the National Film Bureau, 
hosted by the Central Radio and Television General Bureau, the_ !People's Government, 
and th~ I People's Government." The limited background information provided 
here is insufficient to establish the level of national or international recognition associated with the 
festival's I t awards. Although the submitted screenshot shows that the festival's website 
includes a section specifically discussing the 1 !Award," the Petitioner did not provide 
screenshots from that section. 
The Petitioner also submitted background information regarding thel I Awards from the 
Baike online encyclopedia, which also includes a list of previous award winners. According to 
materials submitted by the Petitioner, Baike is a user-edited online encyclopedia, similar to Wikipedia. 
As there are no assurances about their reliability, the content from open, user-edited Internet sites will be 
accorded no evidentiary weight. See Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F .3d 909, 910-11 (8th Cir. 2008). 
In support of her claim that thel I is a nationally recognized award for excellence in the 
Chinese film industry, the Petitioner also submitted a letter froml I who is claimed to be 
3 Id. 
4 The Petitioner previously claimed that she also meets this criterion based on her receipt of a First Class of A ward for 
I I for her novel I I in 1992, and based on her receipt of the honorary title I I 
I I" issued by the China Radio and Television 
Association in 2011. On appeal, the Petitioner claims eligibility based on the film industry awards mentioned above and 
does not address these two awards. 
3 
an expert in the field. The letter states, "I hereby prove that thel IFilm Festival is a 
national film festival in China" and "[ t ]hel I A ward is the national award of China. "I I 
I I indicates that the festival is organized by "the highest administrative authority of the Central 
Government of China in managing movies" thereby making the festivals it organizes "China's national 
awards." According to the letter, thel I Film Festival is "known as one of the China's 
four major film festivals" and "Chinese filmmakers take pride in winning these awards." 
We note that, although I I 8tates that they are a member of the "China Film Association," 
the letter is not accompanied by evidence of this individual's background or qualifications, or any 
background regarding the association they claim to represent. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements from universities, professional organizations, or other sources submitted 
in evidence as expert testimony. Matter of Caron Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). 
However, the submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence 
of eligibility. Id. USCIS may give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated. Id. 
Finally, as noted, the record contains two brief online articles about the closing ceremony of the 2016 
I I Film Festival, at which the festival's! IAwards were given. One article 
is from China News Network (www.chinanews.com). The second article, although published by the 
website www.xinhuanet.com, identifies Guangming Daily as the article's source. The article is 
accompanied by background information regarding Guangming Daily from that publication's own 
website, (www.gmw.cn). The Petitioner emphasizes that Guangming Daily is one of China's major 
newspapers, thereby establishing that the awards ceremony received major media coverage. However, 
we cannot determine that this newspaper actually published the article absent evidence that it appeared 
in its print or online edition. Further, the two submitted articles are not sufficient to establish that the 
I I award winners receive a level of media coverage that is commensurate with a nationally 
or internationally recognized award in the entertainment industry. 
Regarding the 20161 I Award for Excellent Feature Film, the Petitioner submitted a copy 
of the awa~ certificate- an online rurticle from China Wrilersl{l.chinawriters.com.cn) about the 
I IAwards Ceremony held inl I in 2016; and another expert opinion 
letter from I 
In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate her own receipt of lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. Here, the Petitioner 
did not receive the I IA ward; rather, the film and its investors and 
production companies are the named recipients. The second letter from l writing in their 
capacity as a professor at thel I Film Academy, indicates that the[ IFilm Award is 
one of the top three awards in the Chinese film industry and states: 
Since the I I Film Awards Excellent Film Award is awarded to the film, 
the copyrighted investor becomes the named recipients on the award certificate. But 
what it really rewards is actually the screenwriter, the director and the actor/actress. 
All industry insiders and the general audience will attribute the success of the film to 
screen writer, the director and the actor/actresses, not to the investors. 
4 
However, the Petitioner submitted little background information regarding thel I film awards, 
such as a complete list of all of the award categories from the organizer of the awards or another 
reliable source. The submitted article from China Writers indicates that 20 awards were given at the 
Film Awards ceremony, including "the Best Feature Film Award and each individual L...-----....,.....J'--------, 
award." If the~----~ Film Awards bestow "individual awards," then it is reasonable to believe 
that those include awards for roles such as acting, directing, and screenwriting. If the organizers 
intended to recognize the Petitioner individually for her role as director and/or screenwriter ofl I 
.__ __ __.I it appears that they could have done so by bestowing her with an individual award. While 
we recognize that both of these roles are essential in filmmaking, it remains that the Petitioner was not 
the recipient of the .__ ____ ____.Film A ward and therefore the award does not satisfy the plain 
language of this regulation. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which class[fication is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
The Petitioner submitted copies of articles from both English-language and Chinese publications in 
support of this criterion. While some of the published materials appeared in major media including 
The New York Times! Variety, and The Hollywood Reporter, the articles from these sources were 
reviews of the movie I While these and other articles 5 identify the Petitioner as the 
film's director, they are not articles about her but rather reviews of the film she wrote and directed. 
Articles that are not about a petitioner do not fulfill this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe 
v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles 
regarding a show are not about the actor). 6 
Several of the published articles from Chinese media are about the Petitioner and relate to her work as 
a screenwriter and director; however, these articles are not accompanied by evidence that they were 
published in professional or major trade publications or other major media. The evidence includes an 
online article published by China Daily (www.chinadaily.com.cn), which was accompanied by a 
Wikipedia entry regarding this publication. We note that Wikipedia is an online, open source, 
collaborative encyclopedia that explicitly states it cannot guarantee the validity of its content. See 
General Disclaimer, Wikipedi a, https: // en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Wikipedia: General_ disclaimer (last 
visited Mar. 13, 2020); see also Badasa, 540 F.3d at 910-11. 
The Petitioner also provided online articles that are about her and relate to her work which were 
published by Multidimensional News ( culture.dwnews.com), China News Network 
(www.chinanews.com, citing Literary Gazette as its source), Netease (money.163.com, citing Times 
5 The Petitioner also provided online reviews oti !published by Screen Daily, China Source (a blog), Sina 
Entertainment, and Film Journal, as well as capsule summaries of the film that accompanied the announcement of its 
release in the publications Screen Anarchy and SF Weekly. Like the other reviews, these a1iicles are not about the Petitioner. 
6 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 7 (providing that the published material should be about 
the petitioner relating to his or her work in the field, not just about his or her employer or another organization with whom 
he or she is associated). 
5 
Weekly, Guangzhou as its source), Phoenix Entertainment (ent.ifeng.corn), and People's Network 
(people.corn.en), citing Beijing Morning Post as its source. In addition to the online articles, the 
Petitioner submitted two print articles, one published by Oriental Outlook, and one by Beijing 
Entertainment News. 
None of these articles was accompanied by supporting evidence demonstrating that they were 
published in professional or major trade publications or other major media. As it relates to Literary 
Gazette, Oriental Outlook, and Beijing Entertainment News, the Petitioner provided screenshots from 
Baidu encyclopedia describing these publications, a website that is claimed to be comparable to Baike 
or Wikipedia. However, for the reasons already discussed, on-line, open source encyclopedia articles 
are not a reliable source of information. With respect to Times Weekly, the Petitioner provided 
background information regarding this publication from a website called World of Reading 
(sdzk.dooland.corn) which provides a circulation figure for the newspaper. Regardless, even if we 
determined that the circulation figures provided on this website and on Baidu were reliable, the 
Petitioner did not provide additional evidence demonstrating the significance of those figures and 
comparative circulation or distribution figures in support of a claim that any of these publications 
would be considered major media consistent with this regulatory criterion. 7 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the individual's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
class[fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
In order to meet this criterion, the Petitioner must show that she has not only been invited to judge the 
work of others, but also that she actually participated in judging of the work of others in the same or 
allied field of specialization. 
The Petitioner initiall submitted an undated "Letter of Appointment" appointing her to be a "Judging 
Expert for the of National Teenager Reciting Performance of Creative 
Works" for the period '~------~2018." The letter was attributed to three competition 
sponsors which included the Chinese Poetry Society Reciting Performance Committee and the Beijing 
Education Association. 
She also provided an online article which indicates that the launching ceremony for th~ I~---~ 
of the competition was held on I I 201 7, eight months before her arpointrnent as a judge 
began. Another online article was about the finals of the I I of the L I, which 
lasted 180 days and ended inl 1201 7. 
Later, in response to a request for evidence, the Petitioner submitted a "Verification" froni I 
who states that she is the principal o~ I Primary School. I I states that "[ o ]nl 12018, 
I participated in the jury of the original works of the.__ _____ ....,..........National Youth Recitation 
7 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 7 (providing that evidence of published material in 
professional or major trade publications or in other major media publications should establish that the circulation (on-line 
or in print) is high compared to other circulation statistics). 
6 
Competition. I hereby prove that [ the Petitioner] also participated in the jury work." I I states 
that judges were selected by the competition's organizing committee "from a nationwide selection of 
well-known educations, literary and artistic workers, and foll-time youth workers." Finally, she states 
that she, the Petitioner, and another judged awarded a total of 100 first, second and third prize awards 
out of 731 original works, noting that the "the works participating in the competition must have a 
certain level of literacy and be understood by the young and easy to recite," with "selected works 
eligible to be reciting by the participating students in the national competition." 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not satisfy the plain language of the criteria because 
the competition was for children or teenagers and therefore, she could not establish that she had judged 
the work of her "peers." On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that she judged "literature works written 
for teenagers to recite on a national scale competition" and therefore established that she judged the 
work of other writers. 
The language of the regulation requires that the Petitioner demonstrate that she participated "as a judge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization." We agree with the Petitioner 
that judging written works, regardless of the intended audience, would be within her field of 
specialization. However, we find insufficient evidence to establish that she actually participated as a 
the judge in the com etition. There is an unexplained inconsistency between the Petitioner's dates of 
appointment (,___~-----~2018") and I Is statement that the Petitioner served as a judge 
for one day in 2018. The record does not contain evidence from the competition's organizers or 
clarifying when thel I competition actually concluded in 2018 or in what stage the 
Petitioner participated as a judge. For these reasons, we find I I's letter alone insufficient to verify 
the Petitioner's participation as a judge in the competition, and she has not established that she meets 
this criterion. 
Evidence of 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) 
This criterion focuses on volume of sales and box office receipts as a measure of a petitioner's 
commercial success in the performing arts. The evidence must show that the volume of sales and box 
office receipts reflect the individual's commercial success relative to others involved in similar 
pursuits in the performing arts. 8 
The Petitioner states that she meets this criterion based on the commercial success o 
In support of her claim, she submitted a letter from~-=---=----.-------..---------,,--_., one 
of the film's production companies. According to the letter~-----~"received bo~ 
receipts in the amount of RMB 216,053,160,63 which was the box office receipts champion forl__J 
2015 for Chinese language movies. It is a great success for an art movie." The Petitioner stated that 
this figure was equivalent to over $31 million at the time. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion based on a finding that she "is 
not a performing artist" because her "field of endeavor defines [her] as a screen writer; thus not 
8 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 12. 
7 
meeting the plain language of this criterion." On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that she should be 
credited with the commercial success of the film as its screenwriter and director. 
However, we note that even if we determined that this criterion is applicable to the Petitioner based 
on her role as the I ts director and screenwriter, the record does not contain sufficient 
evidence corroborating the movie's box office receipts or any supporting evidence demonstrating the 
commercial success of the film relative to that of others in the industry. Although the submitted letter 
from one of the film's investors indicates that it was the highest grossing Chinese language film in 
I I 2015, it is not accompanied by industry or media reports or comparable evidence to support 
this statement. We cannot make a determination regarding the film's relative success without this 
evidence. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish 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. 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. 
8