dismissed EB-1A Case: Filmmaking

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 18, 2024 In Re: 29126540 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a filmmaker, producer, editor, and director, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner satisfied the initial evidence requirements for this classification by 
demonstrating his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or by submitting evidence to 
satisfy at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The matter is now before 
us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability classification if they have extraordinary ability 
in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and their achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation; they seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. Section 203(b )(l)(A) of the Act. 
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 may demonstrate 
international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award). Absent such an achievement, a petitioner must provide 
sufficient qualifying documentation demonstrating that they meet at least three of the ten criteria listed 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
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) 
( 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); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner stated he is a renowned filmmaker, producer, editor, and director with over 30 years of 
experience in the film industry. He will continue to work in the United States as a filmmaker and provide 
comprehensive training courses in filmmaking, acting, editing, and directing. Because the Petitioner has 
not sufficiently shown that he 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). The Petitioner claims 
to have satisfied these criteria, summarized below: 
• (i), documentation of the individual's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor 
• (ii), membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements of their members 
• (iii), published material about the individual in professional or major media 
• (iv), participation as a judge of the work of others in the same of allied field 
• (vii), display of his work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases 
• (viii), evidence that the individual has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner submitted evidence related to six 
of the ten regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) and concluded he satisfied only one 
criterion. Specifically, the Director concluded that the Petitioner met his burden to demonstrate 
display under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). We will not disturb the Director's determinations regarding 
the Petitioner's display of his work. But for the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director 
that the Petitioner has not satisfied the other claimed criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the.field ofendeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
To satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate he has received lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. When determining 
whether an individual has received lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in the field of endeavor, we consider factors such as: the criteria used to grant the awards 
2 
or prizes; the national or international significance of the awards or prizes in the field; and the number 
of awardees or prize recipients, as well as any limitations on competitors. See generally 6 USCIS 
Policy Manual F.2 appendix, https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that any of the awards qualify as 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. We agree with 
that determination. 
The Petitioner stated he won several awards and prizes at national and international film festivals as a 
director. He submitted copies of certificates, letters, and awards as follows: 
• Silveri laward at the I I Film Festival 2005 
• Award Certificate for Best S~h_o_rt_F_i-lm_a_t-th-e....1-----~IFilm Festival 2003 
• award in 2000 
• Silver Medal award from.___~----------------'-=ina....:2=0"""'0"""0'----, 
• Letter of A reciation from the '----------------------' _______...,_.....;regarding the golden prize award the Petitioner received in the 
Festival 
• ~A_w_a_r_d_L_e_tt_e_r_fo_r_t_h_e~best first and second film directed by the Petitioner from thee=] 
I IFilm~F_es_ti_v_al_____ ~ 
• Award Letter from the I I Festival of Film in 2003 
• Letter of Appreciation from thel IFilm Festival 
• Letter of Appreciation from the I I 
• Letter of Appreciation from the~I-------~ 
The Petitioner did not provide any information regarding several ofthe awards and letters of appreciation, 
which could have helped us understand the e of award actuall ranted. For exam le, while several 
of the certificates such as the ones from the 
~-----------------------' were printed in foreign languages, they 
were not accompanied by certified English translations, as required. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Because 
the Petitioner did not submit a properly certified English language translation of the documents, we 
cannot meaningfully determine whether the translated material is accurate and thus supports the 
Petitioner's claims. In addition, the Petitioner submitted letters of appreciation prepared by the 
organizers of various festivals, yet it is not clear from the letters what type of awards were granted, 
nor does the Petitioner provide additional evidence regarding those awards. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts he won several awards from prestigious film festivals, that the awards 
were both nationally and internationally recognized, and that they were bestowed upon him for his 
excellence in the field as a director. Though the Petitioner submits general information regarding some 
of these film festivals on appeal, that information was derived mainly from Wikipedia, an online, open­
source collaborative encyclopedia that explicitly states it cannot guarantee the validity of its content. 1 
The regulatory language requires that the prizes or awards be nationally or internationally recognized. 
The reputation of the organization holding a given competition does not necessarily establish that a given 
1 See General Disclaimer, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_ disclaimer (last visited January 18, 
2024); see also Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). 
3 
prize or award from that competition is nationally or internationally recognized. 2 In this respect, although 
the Petitioner submitted general background information regarding some of the awarding entities, he has 
not submitted sufficient evidence regarding the competitions' awards themselves. The record does not 
fully explain, or present evidence, regarding the selection processes. Nor does it contain sufficient 
information or supporting evidence about the competition that would support the Petitioner's claim 
that these awards should be considered a national or international award for excellence in the field of 
filmmaking. Absent, for example, information regarding the number of competitors in the Petitioner's 
category, evidence explaining how the awarding bodies selected the awardees, or evidence of the level 
of recognition associated with these awards, we cannot find that the Petitioner has satisfied each 
element of the criterion. 
For the reasons stated above, the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or .fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner maintains that he meets I this criterion based on membership with the: I(2)1 I and (3)1,....;..,.-____ __., 
I IThe Petitioner explained that he is also the founder of thel~----------.---1 
I 
On appeal, the 
I
Petitioner contends that these three associations constitute a "subset" of thel.___ ___.l
and therefore follow the rules and regulations of that group. 
In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must show that membership in the association is based 
on being judged by recognized national or international experts as having outstanding achievements 
in the field for which classification is sought. 3 The Director determined that the Petitioner did not 
submit documentary evidence demonstrating that outstanding achievements are required for 
membership in those organizations, or that they rely on recognized national or international experts to 
determine which individuals qualify for membership. 
As noted by the Petitioner on appeal, inclusion into these associations is based on the ....l _____ ___, 
rules and regulations. However, nothing in the submitted documentation corroborates the claim that 
the Petitioner's three associations follow the membership requirements of thel I. Even 
though the submitted documentation does not corroborate the claim that the three associations follow 
the ._______ ~rules and regulations of: we will still review this claim. According to these rules 
and regulations, an applicant who wishes to become a member of the association must submit at least 
three films that collectively total 120 minutes, one of which must have been made within the last three 
years; a copy of a birth certificate; a copy of a national identification card; and a receipt demonstrated 
they deposited 100,000 tomans to the trade association. So while it appears that membership in the 
2 The regulation specifically requires national or international recognition of the prize or award; the reputation of the awarding 
entity does not suffice. The USCIS Policy Manual acknowledges this distinction, indicating that "[c]ertain awards from well­
known national institutions" "may" qualify under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). See generalzv 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l ), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
3 See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual, F.2(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual (providing guidance for the 
evaluation of evidence submitted under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x)). 
4 
Petitioner's organizations is held by individuals that submit an application and who provide evidence 
of directing three films and additional administrative requirements, the record does not show that 
membership also requires outstanding achievements. 
For these reasons, we agree with the Director's finding that the Petitioner did not establish 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. 
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). 
USCIS first determines whether the published material was related to the person and the person's 
specific work in the field for which classification is sought. 4 The published material should be about 
the person, relating to the person's work in the field, not just about the person's employer and the 
employer's work or another organization and that organization's work. 5 USCIS then determines 
whether the publication qualifies as a professional publication, major trade publication, or other major 
media publication. 6 
The record reflects the Petitioner submitted a of an article entitled, ~--------" 
.,.._----,----------------------------" " posted in the Iran on 
'---~-----' 2005. Aside from the title, we cannot read the article because it is illegible. Though it 
does appear as though the article discusses an award granted to the Petitioner, it is simply not possible 
to fully read it. In similar fashion, several of the remaining articles are insufficient to carry the 
Petitioner's burden because the record contains only translations of excerpts, rather than translations 
of the entire articles. For example, the Petitioner provided an excerpt of the articles posted in Soureh 
Cinema and in Shargh. The Petitioner is required to submit complete evidence that is legible and 
contains the necessary translation. 
The Petitioner submitted two additional articles posted in Iran from 2013 and 2016 where the 
Petitioner was interviewed regarding his work in the film industry. Although these articles are 
published material about the Petitioner and relating to his work in the field, the Petitioner did not 
sufficiently demonstrate the publication qualifies as major media. The Petitioner submits a print-out 
from Wikipedia that stated, in part, that News is a daily newspaper launched in 1995 and with a 
circulation of 165,000 in 2015. As noted above, Wikipedia is an online open-source collaborative 
encyclopedia that explicitly states it cannot guarantee the validity of its content. 7 Moreover, the 
Petitioner did not submit circulation statistics or data to compare the circulation of this publication 
with others to establish that it represents major media. In addition, the circulation data is from 2015 
but the articles about the Petitioner were published in 2013 and 2016, therefore, the Petitioner did not 
provide circulation data at the time of publication to determine if the articles were published in major 
media. 
4 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l ), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
5 Id. 
6 Id. 
7 See General Disclaimer, Wikipedia, https:// en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General _ disclaimer (last visited January 18, 
2024); see also Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). 
5 
The Petitioner also submitted an article entitled,.____________________ ___. 
posted in Tehran Times on I I 2006. Although this article is published material about the 
Petitioner and relating to his work in the field, the Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate the 
publication qualifies as major media. The Petitioner submits a printout from Wikipedia that stated, in 
part, Tehran Times is a daily newspaper founded in 1979 and headquartered in Iran. Again, Wikipedia 
is an online open-source collaborative encyclopedia that explicitly states it cannot guarantee the 
validity of its content. Moreover, the Petitioner did not submit circulation statistics or data to compare 
the circulation of this publication with others to establish that it represents major media. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not show he meets every element of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work ofothers in the same or an allied.field ofspecification for which classification 
is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Director determined the Petitioner did not meet this criterion. This regulatory criterion requires 
a petitioner to show that he has acted as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of 
specialization. In support of this criterion the Petitioner rovided sufficient evidence of havin been 
a member of the juries for th 
Accordingly, we 
hereby withdraw the Director's determination that the criterion was not met. 
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). 
As discussed earlier, the Director found that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. We will not disturb 
the Director's determinations regarding the Petitioner's display of his work. 
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). 
To meet the plain language requirements of this criterion, a petitioner must establish that they have 
performed in either a leading or critical role, and that the role was for an organization or establishment 
(or a division or department of an organization or establishment) with a distinguished reputation. A 
leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall organizational hierarchy and through the 
role's matching duties. A title, with appropriate matching duties, can help establish whether a role is 
or was, in fact, leading. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2)(Appendices), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. In addition, this criterion requires that the organization or 
establishment be recognized as having a distinguished reputation. USCIS policy reflects that 
organizations or establishments that enjoy a distinguished reputation are "marked by eminence, 
distinction, or excellence." See generally id. ( citing to the definition of distinguished, 
Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distinguished). The Petitioner must 
submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
6 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not provide additional evidence to overcome the Director's decision 
and instead contends throughout his career he performed in critical and leading roles in his field of 
expertise by holding the following positions: 
• - instructor, director, ~---------------------------~ juror, and writer 
• Documentary and experimental cinema center - director, producer, writer and editor 
• I I-member of managing board, producer, 
director, and art director 
• ~ film editor 
• I -executive manager 
• I-member of higher production board 
• I-member 
• I- member of the founding board and board of directors 
As noted by the Director, while the Petitioner submitted letters to confirm some of these roles, they 
provided very general explanations of the Petitioner's duties in each of these roles. The Petitioner did 
not provide sufficient documentation to establish he played a leading role in an organization. For 
example, the documentation does not establish that he performed a leading role for an organization as 
a whole, such as by showing he influenced its overall reputation or status, or that he was responsible 
for the organization's success. Nor do the letters show that the Petitioner played a critical role as the 
letters primarily contain bare assertions of acclaim and vague claims of contributions without 
specifically identifying contributions and providing specific examples of how those contributions rose 
to a level consistent with major significance in the field. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that he 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 lesser criteria. We therefore need not provide the type of 
final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20, or render a determination on 
the issue of whether the Petitioner's entry will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
Accordingly, we reserve these issues. 8 
Nevertheless, we have reviewed the record in the aggregate and concluded that it does not support a 
conclusion 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 those progressing toward the top. Price, 20 I&N Dec. 
at 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) ( concluding that even major league level athletes do not automatically 
meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability,"); Visinscaia, 
4 F. Supp. 3d at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted) (finding that the extraordinary ability 
8 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, n.7 
( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
7 
designation is "extremely restrictive by design,"); Hamal v. Dep 't ofHomeland Sec. (Hamal//), No. 
19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021) (determining that EB-1 visas are 
"reserved for a very small percentage of prospective immigrants"). See also Hamal v. Dep 't of 
Homeland Sec. (Hamal I), No. 19-cv-2534, 2020 WL 2934954, at * 1 (D.D.C. June 3, 2020) ( citing 
Kazarian, 596 at 1122 (upholding denial of petition of a published theoretical physicist specializing 
in non-Einsteinian theories of gravitation) (stating that "[c]ourts have found that even highly 
accomplished individuals fail to win this designation")); Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914,918 (N.D. 
Ill. 2002) (finding that "arguably one of the most famous baseball players in Korean history" did not 
qualify for visa as a baseball coach). 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, 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 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) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The record does not contain sufficient evidence 
establishing that he is among the upper echelon in his field. 
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