dismissed EB-1A Case: Filmmaking

U.S. Department of Itlomeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
identifying data deleted to 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
pnvent clearly ~~~wa~n~ed 
 U. S. Citizenship 
invasion of personal puvac) 
 and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
Services 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
LIN 07 148 51899 
 SEP 2 9 2009 
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. $ 11 53(b)(l)(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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
,l,Ukedp ik 
r* John F. Grissom 
r~ctin~ Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Ofice (AAO) 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 Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in the arts. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the 
sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualifjr for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that she meets at least three of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3). The director also determined that the petitioner had not submitted 
clear evidence that she would continue to work in her area of expertise in the United States. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
9 204.5(h)(3). Counsel further states that evidence was submitted proving the petitioner's intention 
to continue filmmaking in the United States. 
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 into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. 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 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 
60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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. tj 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. $ 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, filed on April 24, 2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a filmmaker. The director denied the petition on September 30, 2008, citing two reasons. 
First, the director questioned the circulation data and location of the article in the Daily Inquirer; and 
therefore, decided that the petitioner did not have published material about her in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. Second, the director determined that the petitioner 
failed to establish her intent to continue working in the area of expertise. 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 5557(b) ("On 
appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in 
making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka v. 
US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority 
has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d 
Cir. 1989). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
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. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this 
classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself 
must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. 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.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria under 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3).' 
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 classzfication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 
The petitioner submitted a cover page from MOD magazine, dated December 5, 1997, along with an 
article on an unidentified page from the corresponding issue. The cover page reflects a picture of the 
petitioner. The cover article contains a brief biography of the petitioner, including education, family 
background, and career ambitions. It is noted that the article was written when the petitioner was 18 
years of age and seeking a bachelor's degree in production design from De La Salle University - 
College of St. Benilde. The only mention of filmmaking was the petitioner's desire "to pursue a 
1 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet any relating criteria not discussed in this decision. 
career in directing theater." The cover article from MOD relates to the petitioner as a former model 
on the cover page of a magazine rather than her claimed field of endeavor as a filmmaker. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted an article from the Filipino Times & Asian Review, dated 
January 6-13, 2007. The article indicates that the petitioner finished an intensive directing program 
at the New York Film Academy. The article further indicates that the petitioner "freelances as an 
actress and producer to fund her forays into creating independent films." While the article notes the 
diversified background of the petitioner, such as ballet, choir, modeling, and founder of a rock band, 
the article is not about the petitioner in her field of endeavor as a filmmaker. The single sentence 
which references her claimed field indicates that the petitioner "freelances as an actress and producer 
to fund her forays into creating independent films." 
The petitioner also submitted an article from the PiNOY Chronicle Entertainment Plus, dated 
January 1-15, 2007. The article is about a music group called "Friends Duo," who performed on 
January 5, 2007. There are ten pictures accompanying the article; two of which are of the petitioner 
posing with producers and sponsors of the music performance. There is no mention of the petitioner 
in the article or the significance of the petitioner as it relates to the music performance. Furthermore, 
it is unclear how this article relates to the petitioner's area of filmmaking. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted an article fiom People's Insider, dated February 14, 2007. The 
article indicates that the petitioner has worked on three short independent films - Lover's Quarrel, 
Graveyard Shift, and Temporarily Blind. 
On June 12, 2008, the director requested additional evidence from the petitioner. Specifically, the 
director requested "tables of circulation statistics or of advertising revenue, which will confirm that 
the publications in which the petitioner has been mentioned can be considered to be major media 
outlets . . . ." In response, regarding MOD, the petitioner submitted information from the MOD Web 
site, dated June 19, 2008, indicating a monthly nationwide circulation of 189,600. For PiNOY 
Chronicle Entertainment Plus, evidence was submitted indicating circulation of 10,000 in seven 
states. For People's Insider, as of January, 2008, there was a weekly nationwide and overseas 
circulation of 158,458. There was no evidence submitted regarding Filipino Times & Asian Review. 
In denying the petition, the director acknowledged that the articles submitted by the petitioner were 
published by "worthy" and "significant" newspapers. The director's concern appeared to be based 
upon where the article was located within the particular newspaper. In this instance, we do not share 
the director's concern on this issue. However, as discussed only one of the submitted articles is about 
the petitioner and her work as a filmmaker. 
Specifically, only the article from People's Insider specifically mentions and contains distinct 
information about the petitioner's filmmaking projects. We do not find evidence that the petitioner 
had a single article published about her is sufficient to establish the level of acclaim required for this 
highly restrictive classification. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
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 alliedjeld of speclJication for which classlJication is 
sought. 
The petitioner submitted a "Certificate of Recognition" from City College of Manila, dated March 1 1, 
2006. Counsel claims in a letter, dated April 16, 2007, that the certificate was for "a Judge of the 
competition." However, the certificate only recognizes that the petitioner's "involvement and 
participation contributed immensely to the success of the joint project of students in Philosophy & 
Humanities . . . ." No other documentary evidence was submitted to support counsel's claim that the 
petitioner was a judge. The record is unclear as to the petitioner's exact involvement and participation in 
the joint project of students. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of 
counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do 
not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of 
Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1,3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 
(BIA 1980). 
Nonetheless, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of 
extraordinary ability must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or 
international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." Evidence of the petitioner's participation as a judge must be evaluated in terms of these 
requirements. The weight given to evidence submitted to hlfill the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 
204.5(h)(3)(iv), therefore, 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.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). For 
example, judging a national competition involving professional artists or filmmakers is of far greater 
probative value than judging a local competition involving students or amateurs. 
The petitioner's one-time judging of a joint project of students is not commensurate with the acclaim 
required by this highly restrictive classification. Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that 
she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien 2 work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner submitted an article fiom the Philippines Daily Inquirer, dated March 25, 2007, 
indicating that the petitioner's independent short film, Lover's Quarrel, made its debut in Greenwich 
Village theaters in 2003. The petitioner also submitted a flyer for her showing of Graveyard Shift on 
April 10" & April 15~ at La Mama Etc. However, simply submitting a brochure or evidence of a debut 
of a film is not sufficient to meet ths criterion or to establish her acclaim. 
The record contains no evidence to show, for instance, that the petitioner's films had a substantial 
audience, the specific Greenwich Village theater in which the film was displayed, that La Mama Etc. is 
a distinguished film venue, or the films were otherwise circulated in such a way as to be considered 
exhibited or showcased and in a manner consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. In 
addition, no evidence was submitted showing any critical acclaim, favorable press reviews, or awards. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientzfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signtficance in the field. 
We acknowledge the petitioner's submission of five recommendation letters discussing her 
filmmaking qualifications and artistic contributions. However, assisting on films and having the 
potential to make films are not necessarily indicative of original contributions of major significance. 
The record lacks evidence showing that the petitioner has made original artistically contributions 
that have significantly influenced or impacted her field. 
five years ago when she was just budding as a filmmaker. At that time, we were working on a 
documentary entitled "WILKIE DURAN MONTE: Toxic Chemical Victim which won the 
Best Documentary Film Award in the 2001 Cinemanila International Film Festival and the 
Sylvie Auzie Humanitarian Award in the Brussels International Film and Video Festival. She 
had shown keen interest in filmmalung, with great initiative and willingness to learn new things. 
She is very independent minded and I saw her grow into an exceptionally talented artist, above 
all, as a writer. With her varied creative experiences, she can at this point be considered a global 
artist. 
I am confident that she will be an asset not only to the Filipino and American communities but 
to whosoever and whchever group she will be associating herself with. 
former vice chairman and executive producer of Videofilm and current part time 
professor of Film Production and Broadcast Management at the Assumption College in Makati City, 
Philippines, states: 
had been a freelance Producer/Director 
working very closely with Videofilm on several independent projects and her passion as a 
filmmaker was ve 
 evident during the whole process of production. I have no doubt in my 
mind that dis an outstanding film Director and will have great contributions to the film 
craft in the United States serving both the American and Filipino communities there. 
performing artist, composer, singer, photographer, writer, and columnist, states: 
1 am writing on behalf of, or ho is applying 
for a visa for the extraordinary talented. I have known her for a great number of years now. Not 
only have I seen her work but have also known her closely through a workshop I facilitated and 
I can attest to her exceptional talent as an overall artist especially in the fields of scriptwriting, 
and filmmaking. 
I know she will be an asset to the arts and cultural community of any country and milieu she 
chooses to join and so I have no qualms about my recommendations. 
she consulted me regarding her script for s over's Quarrel. I was also slated to shoot her shorts 
Graveyard Shift and Temporarily Blind but was unable to do so due to prior commitments. 
I have always found her writing and filmmaking to be exceptional and exciting. There is a 
Filipino flavor in her work but at the same time her themes are universal. She has an ability 
to communicate beyond the Filipino community and I think that is a rare gifi. Given the right 
break voice as a writer and filmmaker will undoubtedly resonate in the American as 
well as global community. 
... It was in the course of making my move The Case of Wilkie Duran Monte: Toxic 
Chemical Victim that I made the acquaintance of She aided me in every aspect of 
the production, from the shooting to the editing to the subtitling, and from then on, we have 
been friends due to our common interest in the medium. In particular, she has an exceptional 
ear for language, which aided immensely in incorporating both the Visayan dialect and 
Tagalog in the final English translation.. . 
The preceding individuals credit the petitioner with being a talented artist and having the potential of 
being a great filmmaker, but there is no evidence demonstrating that these accomplishments are 
tantamount to original artistic contributions of major significance in the field of filmmaking. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only 
original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. While the petitioner has earned the admiration of 
her colleagues, there is no evidence establishing that specific work attributable to her equates to 
original contributions of major significance in the field. For example, the record does not indicate 
the extent of the petitioner's influence on other filmmakers nationally or internationally, nor does it 
show that the filmmaking field has somehow changed as a result of her work. 
The recommendation letters submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this regulatory 
criterion. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, 
USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility 
for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters of support from the petitioner's personal 
contacts is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters 
as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. Thus, the content of the writers' 
statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. 
Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration 
petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of original contributions of major 
significance that one would expect of a filmmaker who has sustained national or international 
acclaim at the very top of the field. 
We note that although counsel argues in his appellate brief that the letters submitted on the 
petitioner's behalf attest to the petitioner's authorship of scholarly articles and her leading or critical 
roles in organizations, the letters provide no specific information regarding those claims. Moreover, 
the petitioner has failed to submit documentary evidence of any scholarly articles purportedly 
written and no evidence regarding a leading or critical role in any organization or establishment with 
a distinguished reputation. 
We concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate her receipt of a 
major internationally recognized award, or that she meets at least three of the criteria that must be 
satisfied to establish the national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The conclusion we reach by considering the evidence 
to meet each criterion separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even 
in the aggregate, the evidence does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who 
has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(2). Further, there is no 
evidence showing that the petitioner's national or international acclaim has been sustained. See 
section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
The director also found that the petitioner had not submitted clear evidence that she would continue 
to work in her area of expertise in the United States. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(5) 
requires "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 she intends to continue her work in the United States." 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a "Business Certificate" 
from New York City, New York for Rowena Films Production, which was certified on June 23, 
2008. It is noted that the petitioner applied for this certificate after the director requested additional 
evidence on June 12, 2008. The petitioner also submitted a "Bank Certification" for PSBank 
indicating a balance of $10.414.21. which was opened on March 26.2007. In addition. the ~etitioner 
submitted a letter from dated ~ul~'l8,2008, stating that she worked with the petitioner 
in March 2008 on a feature length film named The Film You Did Not See. indicated that 
the petitioner worked as the 2nd assistant director. 
We find the record is clear, when reviewing all of the evidence, that the petitioner intends to 
continue her work in filmmaking and therefore, that she has satisfied section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the 
Act and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(5). Therefore, we withdraw the director's finding 
regarding this issue. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself 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 is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her field at a national or international 
level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) 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. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.