dismissed EB-1A Case: Film Director

(b)(6)
Date: NOV 0 4 2014 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigra tion Servi.ces 
Office of Administrative Appeals 
20 Massac husetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
!!l6erg . r\ Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition and 
dismissed a subsequently filed motion to reconsider. The matter is now before the Administrative 
Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. We will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner , a film director, seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to 
section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A), as 
an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established the requisite extraordinary ability and did not submit extensive documentation of his 
sustained national or international acclaim. In addition, the director determined that the petitioner 
had not established that he was among that small percentage at the very top of his field of endeavor. 
Further, the director determined that the petitioner did not establish his intent to continue to work in 
his field of expertise in the United States. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish 
the basic eligibility requirements. The director found that the petitioner had met the categories of 
evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (vii), and (viii), but that he had not sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief. In the brief, the petitioner asserts that he meets the 
categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) , (iii)- (iv), and (vii)- (viii) and that the director 's 
final merits determination was in error. 
For the reasons discussed below, we will uphold the director's determination that the petitioner has not 
established his eligibility for the classification sought. We withdraw, however, the director's finding 
that the petitioner's evidence does not meet the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). We 
conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Siddiqui v. Holder, 670 F.3d 736, 741 (7th Cir. 
2012); Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004); Dar v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d 
Cir. 1989). Furthermore, as will be explained in the final merits determination, the evidence of record 
does not demonstrate that the petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of 
the field. Finally, the petitioner does not establish his intent to continue to work in his field ofexpertise 
in the United States. 
I. LAW 
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): 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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 into the United States will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and 
Naturalization Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high 
standard for individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101 st 
Cong., 2d Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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. I d.; 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award) 
or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition 
filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court 
upheld our decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with our evaluation of evidence submitted 
to meet a given evidentiary criterion.1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), 
the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns about the significance of the 
evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent 
"final merits determination." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that our evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. Instead of 
parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the proper 
procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which we did)," and if the petitioner failed to 
submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as we concluded)." Id. at 1122 (citing to 8 C.P.R. 
1 Specifically, the court stated that we had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond 
those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
§ 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as the corollary to this 
procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim 
and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered "sustained 
national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A)(i). 
!d. at 1119-20. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, we will apply the two-step analysis 
dictated by the Kazarian court. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The director determined that the petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires "[d]ocumentation of the alien's 
receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field 
of endeavor." 
The record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner has received the 
at the In addition, the petitioner received the 
-
The petitioner demonstrated that these awards meet the plain language of the regulation at 8 
C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). As such, we withdraw the director's decision for this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
2 On appeal, the petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. Therefore, no determination has been made regarding whether the petitioner meets the remaining categories of 
evidence. 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
The director determined that the petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires "[p ]ublished material about the 
alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to the alien 's work in 
the field for which classification is sought." In general, in order for published material to meet this 
criterion, it 
must be about the petitioner and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. To qualify as major media, the publication should 
have significant national or international distribution. Some newspapers, such as the New York 
Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant 
national distribution, unlike small local community papers. Furthermore, the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that "[s]uch evidence shall include the title, date, 
and author of the material, and any necessary translation. " 
The record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted the following documentation: 
1. A screenshot from www.iranreview.org entitled, 
oy an maenuneu 
C:lUlllUl, 
2. A screenshot from www .lesinrocks.com entitled, ' 
3. An article from Variety entitled, '" on 
4. A screenshot from www .indiatimes .com entitled, 
JY an unidenti:u~;u auluul, 
5. A scr.eenshot from www .kahrizak.com entitled , 
on an unidentified date, by an unidentified 
author; and 
6. A screenshot from www.thehindu.com entitled , ' 
Regarding item 1, the petitioner did not include the author of the material as required pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Furthermore, the screenshot is about the screening of the 
movie, Regarding item 2, 
the screenshot is about the film, The Jar, rather than material about the petitioner relating to his 
work. Regarding item 3, the article is about the in which the petitioner's 
film is mentioned once in the article. Articles that are not about the petitioner do 
not meet 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 about a show are not about the actor). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
Regarding items 4 and 5, although the screenshots reflect published material about the petitioner 
relating to his work, the petitioner did not include the author and/or date of the material as required 
by the regulation. For these reasons alone, none of this documentary evidence meets the plain 
language of this regulatory criterion. 
Moreover, the petitioner submitted a screenshot from www.iraureview.org claiming that "Iran 
Review is the leading independent, non-governmental and non-partisan website" and from 
www.indiatimes.com claiming 
that "Indiatimes is the most 
popular Internet and mobile value-added 
services destination for the global Indian." The petitioner 
did not submit any independent, objective 
evidence demonstrating that www.iranreview.org and www.indiatimes.com are professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C. D. 
CA July 6, 2007) aff'd 2009 WL 604888 (91h Cir. 2009) (concluding that self-serving assertions on 
the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status is not reliant evidence of major media). 
Furthermore, in today's world, many newspapers, regardless of size and distribution, post at least 
some of their stories on the Internet. To ignore this reality would be to render the "major media" 
requirement meaningless. The petitioner did not establish that international accessibility by itself is 
a realistic indicator of whether a given website is "major media." In addition, the petitioner did not 
submit any documentary evidence regarding www.lesinrocks.com and www.kahrizak.com, so as to 
demonstrate that they are professional or major trade publications or other major media. Finally, 
although Variety is a major trade publication, the article does not reflect published material about the 
petitioner relating to his work consistent with the plain language of this regulatory criterion. 
Regarding item 6, the screenshot reflects published material about the petitioner relating to his work. 
The petitioner submitted a screenshot from www.thehindu.com indicating that The Hindu "has been 
steadily growing to the circulation of 14,66,304 [sic] copies (ABC: July-December 2009) and a 
readership of about 4.06 million." The petitioner, however, did not submit any documentary 
evidence regarding www.thehindu.com, so as to establish that the website is a professional or major 
trade publication or other major medium. Even if the petitioner were to demonstrate that the website 
is a major medium, which he has not, section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act requires the submission of 
extensive evidence. Consistent with that statutory requirement, the plain language of the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires published material in more than one professional or major 
trade publication or other major medium. Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) are worded in the plural. Specifically, the regulations at 8 C.P.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
and (ix) only require service on a single judging panel or a single high salary. When a regulatory 
criterion wishes to include the singular within the plural, it expressly does so as when it states at 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience must be in the form of "letter(s)." Thus, 
the plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different context, federal courts 
have upheld users' ability to interpret significance from whether the singular or plural is used in a 
regulation. Cf Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at *1, *12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 
2008); Snapnames.com Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005, at *1, *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) 
(upholding an interpretation that the regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" foreign 
equivalent degree at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single degree rather than a combination of 
academic credentials). 
Accordingly, the petitioner did not establish that he meets this criterion. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
Evidence of the alien 's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is 
sought. 
The director determined that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. The plain language 
of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires "[e]vidence of the alien's participation , either 
individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification 
for which classification is sought." 
The record of proceeding reflects that the etitioner served as a judge at the 
Therefore, we concur with the director's decision for this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
for 
The director determined that the petitiOner established eligibility for this criterion. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) requires "[e]vidence of the display of the 
alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases." 
The record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner's films have been displayed at various 
exhibitions such as the and the 
Therefore, we concur with the director's decision for this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The director determined that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires "[e]vidence that the alien has 
performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished 
reputation." 
The record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role as a 
director for various films such as Therefore, we concur 
with the director 's decision for this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner established that he meets this criterion. 
B. Summary 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
The petitioner has satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of at least three categories of 
evidence. 
C. Final Merits Determination 
We will next conduct a final merits determination that considers all of the evidence in the context of 
whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is 
one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor ," 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act; 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
In evaluating our final merits determination, we must look at the totality of the evidence to determine 
the petitioner's eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. The weight given to the evidence 
submitted to fulfill the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) depends on the extent to which such evidence 
demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of 
the alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory 
definition of "extraordinary ability" as "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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
We cannot ignore that the statute requires the petitioner to submit "extensive documentation" of the 
petitioner's sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act. The 
commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act provide that 
the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in 
this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more extensive documentation than that required" 
for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). The petitioner submitted 
numerous foreign language documents without any certified English language translations. 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.2(b )(3). Therefore, the foreign language documents are not probative and will not be accorded 
any weight in making our final merits determination. The truth is to be determined not 
by the quantity 
of evidence alone but by its quality. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010) citing Matter 
of E-M- 20 I&N Dec. 77, 80 (Comm'r 1989). 
As discussed under the awards criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.ER. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the 
petitioner received the 
and The petitioner submitted evidence of additional awards 
such as the 
and the Regarding the published material criterion 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the petitioner submitted only six articles, one of 
which was written in 1995, one was written in 2001, three were written in 2009, and one was not dated. 
Regarding the judging criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the majority of 
the petitioner's documentary evidence reflected requests to judge film festivals between 1995 to 2003 
rather than evidence that he actually participated as a judge. The petitioner, however, did submit 
evidence that he served as a judge in 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
and in an unidentified year at the 
Regarding the display criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii), the petitioner submitted documentary evidence of the display of his films at various 
festivals from 1993 to 2009. Finally, regarding the leading or critical role criterion pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the petitioner has submitted documentary evidence reflecting 
that he has directed several movies from 
The petition was filed on July 12, 2013. The petitioner did not submit any documentary evidence since 
2009, approximately four years from the filing of the petition, to demonstrate that he has sustained the 
required national or international acclaim. The absence of any evidence from 2009 to the filing of the 
petition in 2013 is not indicative of sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the 
field. The petitioner, for example, did not submit any awards that he has garnered in the past four years, 
that he has participated as a judge of other celebrated directors, that he has had any recent films 
displayed at exhibitions or festivals, or that he has directed any critically acclaimed films since 2009. 
The submission of only six articles is not consistent with sustained national or international acclaim for 
this highly restrictive classification; the petitioner did not submit any evidence of any published material 
about him for at least the last four years. 
In this matter, the evidence of record falls short of demonstrating the petitioner' s sustained national or 
international acclaim as a film director. The conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to meet 
each category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) separately is consistent with a review of the 
evidence in the aggregate. Ultimately, the evidence in the aggregate does not distinguish the petitioner 
as one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(h)(2). The petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification. In this case, the petitioner 
has not established that his achievements at the time of filing the petition were commensurate with 
sustained national or international acclaim as a film director, or that he was among that small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
III. INTENT TO CONTINUE TO WORK 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5) states: 
Neither an offer for employment in the United States nor a labor certification is 
required for this classification; however, the petition must be accompanied by clear 
evidence that the alien is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of 
expertise. Such evidence may include letter(s) from prospective employer(s), 
evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a statement from the 
beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her work in the 
United States. 
At the initial filing of the petition, the petitioner submitted a letter stating: 
I . . ., hereby inform you of my decision on continuing my career as a film director 
should I obtain the green card and residence permit for The United States of America. 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Upon my relocation to the United States, I intend to work with the esteemed film 
director, Steven Spielberg on feature films. 
In the director's request for evidence (RFE) pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8), the 
director stated: 
The petition does not indicate that the [petitioner] has prearranged commitments for 
working in this field. . . . A simple statement of intent to work with a famous director is 
insufficient evidence that [the petitioner] has a reasonable expectation of employment 
while working in the United States. Please submit evidence that the [petitioner] is 
coming to the United States to continue work in the field .... 
In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner indicated that documents were attached demonstrating 
that he will continue to work as a director in the United States; however the record of proceeding 
contains no such documents. In the director's denial, the director stated: 
In its [RFE], the Service specically requested that the petitioner provide evidence of his 
ability to continue working in his field of expertise while in the United States. The 
Service specifically requested copies of letters from current or prospective employers or 
employment contracts. However, no evidence in response to the Service's request has 
been provided. 
No "job offer" is required to qualify under this classification. However, the 
[petitioner's] statement that he intends to come to the United States to work with Steven 
Spielberg, absent other evidence, is insufficient to show that he will continue in his 
claimed area of expertise while in this country. 
On motion and on appeal, the petitioner did not contest the director's findings for this issue or submit 
additional documentation. We, therefore, consider this issue to be abandoned. See Sepulveda v. U.S. 
Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 
WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court found the plaintiff's claims to be abandoned 
as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
Notwithstanding, we concur with the director that the petitioner did not establish his intent to continue 
to work in his area of expertise in the United States. While the petitioner made a general claim that he 
intends to work with Mr. Spielberg, he did not submit any documentary evidence supporting his future 
employment with Mr. Spielberg. He has offered no specific details regarding, for instance, any pre­
arranged work with Mr. Spielberg. The petitioner's general desire to work with Mr. Spielberg is 
insufficient to demonstrate a detailed plan of his intention to continue to work in his area of expertise. 
Furthermore, the record contains no evidence from any other prospective employers reflecting the 
petitioner's intent to work in his area of expertise in the United States. 
Accordingly, the petitioner did not establish by clear evidence that he intends to come to the United 
States to continue in his area of expertise pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act and the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Pag
e 11 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must demonstrate that the 
individual 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 himself to 
such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim and 
to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or 
international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Act, and the petition may not be approved. 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.