dismissed EB-1A Case: Film Production

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 17286250 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 23, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a producer of short films, commercials, and music videos, seeks classification as an 
alien of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 
U.S.C. § l 153(b )(1XA). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who 
can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or in temational 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 he met the initial evidence requirements through receipt of a major , internationally 
recognized award or meeting at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) . 
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 )(1) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences , arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability , and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C .F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then 
he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain 
media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits detennination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32(D.D.C. 2013);Rijalv. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a producer of television commercials, short films and music video who co-founded 
I a a production firn1 originally based in I, in 2011. He states 
that he intends to continue working as a producer in the United States. 1 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). TheDirectorfoundthatthePetitionermettwo oftheevidentiarycrite1ia 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating to the display of his work at artistic exhibitions or showcases 
and his participation as a judge of the work of others in his field. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that 
he also meets four additional evidentiary criteria. After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, 
we agree with the Director regarding the display and judge criteria, but conclude that the Petitioner 
also meets at least one additional criterion and thus the initial evidentiary requirement for this 
classification. 
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 specialization for which 
classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
The evidence shows that the Petitioner served as a member of the jury for the National Association of 
Advertisers (ANDA) awards in two years, 2011 and 2012. These awards were given in several 
1 In response to our request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner resta tedhis intent to work as an executive producer in the 
United States for I in FL, and also included an updated letter from the manager of this company dated 
January 20, 2022 which states his intent to offer the Petitioner a position. However, a search of the Florida Department of 
State, Division of Corporations website (sunbiz.org) on March 10, 2022 revealed that the company was voluntarily 
dissolved on March 16, 2021 because it did not haveanyoperatingactivities, andwasthereforeincapable ofofforingajob 
to the Petitioner on the date of the letter. As the only evidenceofthePetitioner's intent to continue working in his field in 
the United States consists of a fraudulent letter, he would be required to overcome this issue in any further proceedings in 
this matter. 
2 
categories to advertising agencies and production companies. While a letter from ANDA also invited 
him to serve as a jury member in the technical categories for these awards in 2015, this does not 
establish that participated as a judge in that year. In addition, the Petitioner submitted an article 
published inl lin 2012 which names him as one of nine jury members for an exhibition, 
I lwhich featured creative works in advertising. This evidence establishes that he meets 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) 
To meet this criterion, a petitioner must show that their work in the field was displayed at an exhibition 
or showcase, and that the exhibition or showcase was artistic in nature. In support of his claim under 
this criterion, the Petitioner submitted evidence that the short film for which he is credited as 
the executive producer, was screened at several international film festivals, including the 2018 
I I International Film Festival. He also served as a producer for the short filml I I which was screened at several film festivals in 2000. This evidence establishes 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
The Petitioner submitted evidence showing that he is a founding partner of land has served 
as its executive producer since 2011, which establishes his leading role for the company. Additional 
evidence shows thatthe companyreceivedseveralANDAawards atthe gold, silver, and bronze levels 
between 2012 and 2016 in recognition of the commercials it produced. It was also ranked as one of 
the top four production companies inl for three years, from 2013 to 2015, by I 
magazine. As such, the Petitioner has established that he performed in a leading role for an 
organization with a distinguished reputation. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As shown above, the Petitioner meets three of the evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(hX3) 
and has thus established that he meets the initial evidence requirement. While he asserts that he also 
meets additional criteria, we need not consider those claims. Rather, we will consider the evidence 
submitted in support of those additional criteria together with the entirety of the record when 
conducting a final merits determination. In a final merits determination, we examine and weigh the 
totality of the evidence to determine whether the Petitioner has sustained national or international 
acclaim and is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. Here, the Petitioner 
has not offered sufficient evidence that he meets that standard. 
As noted above, the record shows that the Petitioner is one of three co-founders and the executive 
producer of I a I video and film production firm which has also expanded into 
other markets inl I The company's work has been recognized through its receipt of 
several ANDA awards from 2012 through 2016, although the evidence indicates that only recipients 
of gold awards received statuettes, and the agency did not win the top "producer of the year" award in 
3 
any year. While the Petitioner claims that his previous employer, I also received several 
ANDA awards during his employment there as an associate executive producer, the letter from ANDA 
refers only to awards received by I and unlike the awards received by I which are 
documented by both media and copies of plaques, the record does not include independent 
documentary evidence of the awards claimed to have been received by I We also note that 
an article from the website ofl I covering the 2016 ANDA awards lists a total of 142 that were 
granted that year at the gold, silver, and bronze level, which indicates that these are considerably less 
exclusive than the top "best agency" and "best producer" awards granted by ANDA. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also submits new evidence regarding silver and bronze I awards 
received by I at the !International Festival in 2013, 2014 and 2015, which receives 
entries from advertising agencies in several countries in the region. 
Although this evidence does not show that the Petitioner personally received either ANDA or 
awards, as he is not named as a recipient by either of the awarding organizations, it does show that the 
work of the company which he founded and leads has been recognized at some level by national 
organizations inl I and I 1 2 
The record also shows thatl was named as one of the top four production companies in 
__ in 2013, 2014 and 2015 by I.magazine, which features short articles about each of 
the ranked companies in those annual rankings and includes quotes from the Petitioner in the article 
about his company. Evidence in the form of marketing materials from the pub lis her indicates that 
I is a monthly business magazine in with circulation of 18,000, primarily serving 
the larea, but the record does not include evidence which puts this circulation figure into 
perspective in the I I media market, and therefore does not show the extent to which these 
rankings were recognized on a national basis. This evidence shows that during this period, the 
company which the Petitioner founded and lead achieved some level of recognition as standing out 
from other production companies inl land that he was acknowledged as one of its leaders. 
We note, however, that these awards, rankings, and the resulting professional media attention for 
I I spanned only four years, a small portion of the Petitioner's career in this field, and the record 
does not include similar evidence before 2012 or after 2016 despite the petition being filed three years 
later. 
In addition to acting as a producer for television commercials, the record includes evidence of the 
Petitioner's work on short films and music videos. As discussed above, he is credited as a producer 
on the short film (2000), and as an executive producer on the short film 
(2018), both of which were screened at several film festivals. The evidence indicates that 
nominated for an award at thel ' I International Film Festival, and was named "Best 
I Film" at the I festival, and the IMDB pages for and 
l I show that they also received awards at other film festivals. As with the ANDA and 
awards, the evidence does not show that the Petitioner was named as a recipient of any of these awards. 
While we acknowledge the letter from ______ director o and the Petitioner's 
business partner, describing the Petitioner's important role on this film, the evidence does not show 
2 The Petitioner submitted evidence which appears to be art of his ortfolio, or that he prepared for purposes of this 
petition, which lists las being a finalist for an award for "Best TV CommerG,.iat..in, 
2010. While some reference letters mention the award, the record lacks evidence that either 
c===lrthe Petitionerreceived such an award. 
4 
that he received significant acclaim for this role. Also, although tbe oress releases for published 
in some media mention both the Petitioner an - I this self-created content does 
not reflect acclaim from others in the field. Ultimately, while these two short films produced by the 
Petitioner over his long career as a producer garnered attention in the industry and at film festivals, 
the record does not establish that this work helped to elevate his standing into one of the small 
percentage at the top of his field. 
As for music videos, a letter from the founding member of the band I lbriefly describes the 
Petitioner's work on the video for the song I, the release of which in 2018 was 
covered by media in I I and elsewhere. Several of the articles contain an identical paragraph, 
apparently from a ress release, which describes I las "one of the main audiovisual production 
compames 1 and names the Petitioner as the executive producer. As with the press release 
material f for _ while these articles show that the video garnered some attention in the press, they 
do not demonstrate acclaim for the Petitioner from others in his field. 
The Petitioner also asserts that he served as a producer for thel I series I I referring to 
articles apparently from I lmedia whichreportthad I will produce 
the third season of the series to be shot in I While reference letters also make mention of this 
project which was completed in 2019, there is no documentary evidence of the Petitioner's direct 
involvement. We further note that the evidence names other companies as producers of the show, and 
the record lacks evidence to show that either the Petitioner orl I were credited for its 
production. 
Fmiher evidence pe1iaining to the Petitioner's acclaim and standing within his field includes an 
interview of him which was published in I I in July 2013 in which he discusses the 
establishment and progress of I The previously noted quotes in the profiles of the production 
companies ranked by I published in 2013, 2014 and 2015, focus mainly onl I 
production statistics and business outlook rather than the Petitioner and his career, and thus do not 
reflect personal acclaim beyond recognition of his role for a distinguished production house. 
In addition, an autobiographical article by the Petitioner, which appeared on the I I website but is 
not dated, does not appear to be accompanied by a complete and accurate English translation based 
upon the structure and content of the original, and has not been demonstrated to have appeared in a 
major or professional medium. This evidence, considered together with the press releases about 
and other media which only mentions him in passing, verify that he was playing a leading role for a 
successful production house, but does not reflect sustained acclaim for the Petitioner as a producer. 
Turning to another type of evidence in the record, the Petitioner's service as a jury member for the 
2011 and 2012 ANDA awards, and his invitation to participate in this role for the 2015 ANDA awards, 
show that he was acknowledged as an expert in his field at the national level in that period. As with 
the company awards and media, however, it does not show that this recognition was sustained, or that 
he stood out from other production experts in the field who also served in such roles. 
5 
The record also includes reference letters in addition to those previously mentioned which mainl 
describe the Petitioner's roles in several projects. 3 For example, the second letter from 
I lakal I discusses his work on a music video for the character ___ noting that 
the Petitioner took leading roles in the development of the character and production of a music video 
for the song 11 Jnotes that the video had more than 42,000 views on 
Y ouTube as of the date of the letter, September 3, 2020, and was briefly reviewed along with other 
new music on NPR's altl lpodcast. 
Another reference letter was submitted by I a founder of the I production 
company. He describes the Petitioner's work as a line producer for a television commercial for the 
I notting that it required a remote location, cameras mounted on a variety of equipment, 
and action stunts. I I also states that both he and his clients were pleased with the commercial 
and the Petitioner's leading role in its production. While these and other letters show thatthe Petitioner 
has led or participated in the successful production of a variety of projects, they do not establish that 
he received sustained national or international acclaim for this work. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also reasserts his claim to a high salary compared to others in his field as 
evidence of his sustained acclaimed and position near the top of his field. The record includes several 
statements translated as "Statement of Miscellaneous Withholdings" for the years 2014-17, which the 
Petitioner describes as his "W-2s." While the terms and figures in these statements are not completelv 
explained, the statements include two columns labelled "Withholding Tax Base," one in J I land another in U.S. dollars, which appear to show the Petitioner's pre-tax earnings, or gross 
income, for the year. The figures are as follows: 
• 2014 
• 2015 
• 2016 
• 2017 
• 2018 
$27,614 
$24,052 
$29,625 
$37,533 
$9,427 
For 2017 and 2018, the Petitioner also submitted forms titled "Form DPN-99025: Final Tax Return 
of Income and Payment for Individuals Residences and Inheritances." The figure matching the above 
form for 2017 appears on Line 22 ofPartE, Total Net Income, although for 2018 this figure is slightly 
lower than that shown on the above form. 
As proof of his earnings in I the Petitioner submitted a letter and figures from an accounting 
firm, although we note that no address or telephone number are provided on this letter. The attached 
tables show "List of payments received" from I andl I Productions for the 
years 2015-17, with the totals as follows: 
• 2015 
• 2016 
• 2017 
B/.29,300 
B/.54,700 
B/.39,500 
3 All reference letters in the record were reviewed and considered, including those not specifically mentioned in this 
decision. 
6 
Because th d h as a 1 : 1 ex ch an ge rate with the U.S. dollar, the Petition er adds the figures 
from the documents showing his earnings in I and I claiming totals of $53,352 in 
2015, $84,325 in 2016 and $77,033 in 2017. 
For purposes of comparison to others in his field, the Petitioner initially submitted a letter from his 
accountant stating that he receives 150% of the daily rate of other executive producers of short films 
in I I appearing to base this statement upon his work with and other companies. 
However, this statement is not supported by a salary survey of the broader video and film production 
industry inl I Even if the other companies listed by the accountant are production companies 
and he has access to their financial data, given the small sample size and lack of supporting data, this 
statement cannot be considered as a reliable indicator of the average salaries of others in the 
Petitioner's field. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner also submitted a letter from I who 
states that she is the President of the I IFilm and Video Industry in I I D 
indicates that this organization represents professionals in the audiovisual industry and works 
with the labor unions to set the wages for these professionals. Although she concedes that the 
organization does not negotiate wages for executive producers, she states that it has knowledge of 
these wages through budget reviews, and that it is "common" for an executive producer to earn $400 
or $500 per day. Further, she states that most executive producers inl I involved in creating 
commercials would earn between $10,000 and $20,000. As with the letter from the Petitioner's 
accountant, these statements are not supported by documentary evidence such as a salary survey, and 
they are also not accompanied by additional information about the chamber or its functions. 
I lappears to base her figures on casual observation rather than a systematic study of such 
salaries, and she does not provide relevant data such as the sample size her figures are based upon. As 
such, this evidence is not sufficient to establish a basis for comparison of the Petitioner's salary to 
those of other producers. 
The totality of this evidence shows that the Petitioner has enjoyed some success as an executive 
producer of commercials and other short films and co-founder of a production company, but that the 
acclaim stemming from that success was relatively short-lived. In addition, while his company 
enjoyed success and acclaim for a period, and his expertise was sought in the judging of other 
production professionals, the record does not establish that this elevated his standing as a producer to 
that of one of the small percentage at the top of the field. Accordingly, after a thorough review of the 
evidence in the record, the petition will remain denied. 
III. CONCLUSION 
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 "extraordinaty 
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 his 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, l 990);see also section 203(b)(l )(A) 
7 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and that he is one of the small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(l)(A) oftheActand 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his 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