dismissed EB-1A Case: Filmmaking

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5258216 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : NOV. 14, 2019 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a filmmaker, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the Petitioner had 
satisfied only one of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this classification, of which he must meet at 
least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and contends that he meets at least three 
of the criteria and qualifies as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
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 sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, 
then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten 
categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material 
in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a filmmaker and trained medical doctor who has studied at thel 
University and thd I Film Academy. He has been working in the film indus~try_i_n_U_kr_a-in-e~, 
Nigeria and the United States. 
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). The Director found that the Petitioner met one of the evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating to the display of his work at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also meets the evidentiary criteria relating to awards, published 
material about him and his work, judging the work of others in his field, and performing in a leading 
or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
Documentation of the individual's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that his prizes or awards are nationally 
or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. 1 Relevant considerations include, 
but are not limited to, the criteria used to grant the prizes or awards, the national or international 
significance of the prizes or awards in the field, and the number of awardees or prize recipients as well 
as any limitations on competitors. 2 
The Petitioner submitted evidence of several awards in the field of filmmaking for which he was either 
selected or nominated. His film] I was recognized as: a finalist for the Sembene Ousmane Prize 
1 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form T-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADI 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
2 Id. 
2 
at the Film Festival; a finalist in both the cinematography and best film 
categories in the I I short film competition; and an honorable mention at the I I 
~---~!Online Film Festival. Because the plain language of this criterion calls for receipt of prizes 
or awards, nomination or selection as a finalist for an award is not considered qualifying under this 
criterion. Therefore, this evidence does not establish that the Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Also submitted was evidence that the Petitioner's film I I was selected as the winner ofc==] 
.__ _________ __. 2016 Short Film Competition. The evidence indicates that thel__J 
competition awards one winner each month (typically selected from 12 to 25 submissions) and limits 
consideration to short films that focus onl I issues. Winners receive $1,000 and their films 
are added to the organization's film collection for use in educational outreach activities. The evidence 
indicates that the announcement of the award was posted on Newswire.com and ePRnews.com, but 
does not provide sufficient information about these specific websites to support the degree of 
recognition these awards received. Accordingly, this evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate that 
the Petitioner's award fromDis nationally or internationally recognized. 
The Petitioner 12rovided evidence that he won a I I award for Best Director of a Documentary 
Short Film forl I at thel IFilm Awards in 2016. The record includes 
screenshots from the award organizer's website and evidence that a press release announcing the 
winners was posted on the website of FilmMatters magazine. However, the record otherwise lacks 
evidence regarding this film competition, its submission and judging criteria, and the level of 
recognition associated with it. 
Finally, the Petitioner presented evidence of his receipt of a $25,000 First Prize award in the 
documentary category for his filml lat the 20131 I Film Competition. 
The evidence demonstrates that the competition drew submissions from an international pool of 
I !filmmakers and that its results were publicized on websites in several I I countries. 
However, while the record reflects that the ten finalists in both categories ( short film and documentary) 
were selected by a judging panel of well-known experts in the field, winners were selected through an 
online public vote at the competition website, with finalists eligible to promote their entries to 
accumulate votes. As noted, the criteria used to grant the prize is a relevant consideration in 
determining whether a given prize or award satisfies this criterion. Here, we cannot find that the prize 
itself: based on popularity as determined by a public vote, was awarded for "excellence in the field." 
For the foregoing reasons, the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the aforementioned awards 
are nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the field of filmmaking. 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which class[fication is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that he meets this criterion based on published articles that have 
appeared in the print and online editions of The Daily Times Nigeria (two articles) and Saturday 
3 
Telegraph, and in the print edition of Leadership. 3 In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must 
demonstrate published material about him in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, as well as the title, date, and author of the material. 4 
The submitted articles are about the Petitioner and his work, and they include the title, date, and author 
of the material. However, the Director found that the Petitioner had not established that the articles 
appeared in professional or major trade publications or other major media. Since the listed 
publications are daily newspapers and not professional or trade publications, the Petitioner must 
demonstrate that they are considered "major media" in Nigeria. 
With regard to The Daily Times Nigeria, the Petitioner provided a letter from the newspaper' s._l _ ___, 
I I who states that the newspaper has a daily circulation of 65,000 and is "ranked amongst the 
top 10 news sources in Nigeria, with a broader reach provided by the online website." He also 
provided a screenshot of Google search results for the phrase 'Top 10 newspaper in Nigeria," which 
returned an unranked list of 16 publications. Finally, the record contains two "Top 1 O" lists - the "Top 
10 Nigerian Newspapers (Most Read Online)," from AnswersAfrica.com and "Top 10: Your Guide to 
the Most Readable Newspapers in Nigeria" published by Legit.ng. The Daily Times Nigeria does not 
appear on either list. 
Similarly, the Petitioner provided a letter from.__ __________ ___. of the New Telegraph 
newspaper, who states that the newspaper prints 65,000 copies daily, has 3000 subscribers, and is well­
circulated. He farther notes that the newspaper's website has 3.45 million views/hits daily. Like the 
The Daily Times Nigeria, New Telegraph does not appear on either of the submitted "Top 10" lists 
although it appeared in the submitted Google search results. 
Finally, ~rd includes a letter from.__ ___________ ___. for Leadership Group 
Limited. L___J describes the Leadership newspaper as "widely circulated nationwide" with a daily 
print run of 55,000 copies, and states that it was awarded "Newspaper of the Year" in 2009. The 
Petitioner also provided a screenshot from Twitter.com showing that Leadership newspaper's account 
had 562,000 followers. The evidence shows that Leadership appeared as number 10 on the "Top 10 
Nigerian Newspapers (Most Read Online)," but the Petitioner did not provide evidence that the 
published article about him, an interview titled ~------------------~ 
appeared in the online version of the paper. 
In the denial decision, the Director acknowledged that the submitted letters from the newspaper 
publishers, but found that the letters did not provide "compelling information" indicating that the 
publications are considered major media in Nigeria. The Director also noted the lack of independent 
evidence supporting the Petitioner's claims, citing to Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C. D. 
CA July 6, 2007) aff' d 2009 WL 604888 (9th Cir. 2009) ( concluding that self-serving assertions on 
the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status is not reliable evidence of major media). 
3 The Petitioner initially submitted articles that appeared on OnTVsite.com, Fortefilm.net, Gemmsblog.com, and 
AfricaNewsPress.com in support of the published materials criterion. However, on appeal, the Petitioner does not pursue 
his claim that this evidence satisfies all requirements for this criterion. Accordingly, we have considered. but will not 
address this evidence. On appeal, the Petitioner claims eligibility based solely on articles appearing in Nigerian daily 
newspapers. 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 7. 
4 
On appeal, the Petitioner objects and asserts the submitted evidence "should suffice as evidence that the 
Daily Times, News Telegraph and Leadership are 'major media' and have significant national 
distribution, because the evidence submitted is the only evidence available to prove same." The 
Petitioner further maintains that "Nigeria does not have a unified body responsible for the publishing 
circulation stats of news agencies." However, the Petitioner opted to submit two "Top Ten" rankings of 
Nigerian publications on which The Daily Times and News Telegraph do not appear at all. Leadership 
appears on one of these lists as the tenth most popular newspaper online in Nigeria, and the Petitioner 
emphasizes that this publication's website has a significant social media following. However, the record 
does not contain evidence that the article about the Petitioner appeared on the online version of the 
newspaper or indicate the source of the information used to compile this Top Ten ranking. 
Furthermore, while the newspapers' publishers provided circulation numbers, we cannot determine 
that a newspaper with circulation in the range of 55,000-65,000 copies is "major media" without 
comparative data. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the published articles in these 
newspapers satisfy this criterion. 5 
On appeal, the Petitioner references two articles about him that were published in I 12018, 
nine months after the filing of the petition. Specifically, this evidence included articles published 
online and in print in Vanguard and in The Sun Newspaper, both of which appear in the top five on 
the two previously submitted Top 10 rankings. The Petitioner also provided a screenshot from 
Alexa.com, which provides website traffic statistics for Vanguardgr.com, indicating that it is ranked 
#12 in Nigeria. As noted by the Director, however, the Petitioner must establish that all eligibility 
requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of filing and continuing 
through adjudication. See 8 C.F .R. § 103.2(6 )(1 ). Therefore, the Petitioner cannot rely on this evidence 
to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Finally, the record does not show that any of the remaining articles submitted for this criterion were 
about the Petitioner and in major media. Based on the foregoing, he has not demonstrated that he meets 
this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the individual's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of spec[fication for which 
class[fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted a letter from c=Js Program Director 
indicating that he is a member of its Advisory Board and has served as a juror for its monthly film 
competition on a regular basis. However, the Director determined that the letter lacked probative 
value because it did not include the organization's address or URL, or sufficient details regarding the 
Beneficiary's judging activities. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a second letter from the program 
director that contains the information mentioned in the Director's decision. Further, the record already 
included evidence of the Beneficiar~ition on the c=J' s Advisory Board, as well as a screenshot 
from his judge's dashboard on thel__Jwebsite indicating that he has judged eight monthly film 
competitions. We find the evidence sufficient to establish that he meets this criterion. 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7 (providing that evidence of published material in 
professional or major trade publications or in other major media publications about the petitioner should establish that the 
circulation ( on-line or in print) is high compared to other circulation statistics and show the intended audience). 
5 
Evidence of the display of the individual's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
The Petitioner submitted documentation rlflectjng that bis film~ were screened at thel I 
'-------~ Film Competition, the.__ -------~J Film Festival, and several online film 
festivals. As such, the record supports the Director's determination that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role/or organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner claims that he meets this criterion based on his work as sole editor and post-production 
supervisor on a featur-length rm called.__ _______ __, which was written and directed by 
for the National Center of Cinematography j I also referred to as the 
Center). The Petitioner asserts that he served in a leading and critical role for the 
Center in his role as editor for this project. 
As it relates to a leading role, the evidence must establish that a petitioner is or was a leader. A title, 
with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role is or was, in fact, leading. 6 Regarding 
a critical role, the evidence must demonstrate that a petitioner has contributed in a way that is of 
significant importance to the outcome of the organizations or establishment's activities. It is not the 
title of a petitioner's role, but rather the performance in the role that determines whether the role is or 
was critical. 7 
The record includes a letter fromL_ __ ~l-""'- ......... r"'an ofthel land two letters fro ... ----,~--' 
The letter from I !identifies the.,..__ __ .1.1.lf' "the sole governmental institution in 
.__ ___ __, 
finances film production and promotes talents worldwide." He expresses esteem for 
I I identifies him as the director of ._____,----..,.._ _ __. and notes th'l~""L--~ also 
supported I Is debut feature in 2010. ~--~further recommends.__ __ ..--~~___..._, 
talented filmmaker and producer." While he acknowledges that the Petitioner edited.__ __ ___, 
I I he does not otherwise mention him. 
This letter does not support the Petitioner's claim that he "serves as an editor for thel I I t or that he otherwise serves in a leading or critical role for that organization. I Is letter 
did not contain detailed and probative information that specifically addressed how the Petitioner's 
editorial role for one film was leadin or critical for the organization as a whole. 8 As noted D I I primarily attested to s talents mentioned the Petitioner only in passing, and did not 
explain how his film editing for~-------~was of significant importance forl Is 
success or standing in the industry so as to demonstrate a leading or critical role. 
As noted, the Petitioner submitted two letters from director o In 
the first letter, dated January 8, 2018, he mentions that'--------~ was his most recent film 
and that the Petitioner was "a huge part" of the film. In a letter dated December 15, 2018, .... 1 ___ ___, 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
7 Id. 
8 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 10. 
6 
states that~------~was produced for the~----------~ and confirms the 
Petitioner's "crucial role" as the film's sole editor and postproduction supervisor. He explains the 
importance of the editor role and states that "the talent and endless efforts of [the Petitioner] made the 
film to standout and created a huge following in an audience that like this particular genre" and generally 
mentions that the film received extensive media coverage in southern Europe. 
Whilel I provides more information regarding the importance of the Petitioner's role with 
respect tol O I he does not write as a representative of the I I the organization 
with which the Petitioner claims to perform in a leading or critical role. He confirms that the Petitioner 
contributed to the success of the film ( although the extensive media coverage referenced in his letter 
is not corroborated by supporting evidence), but his statement cannot substitute from a letter from the 
I lthat specifically explains how the Petitioner services in a leading or critical role for that 
organization. In fact, it remains unclear whether the Petitioner provided his services as editor directly 
for I l fo~ Is company, or for some other entity involved in I I 
project. 
Finally, we acknowledge that the evidence indicates that the l7 is "the sole governmental 
institution inl I that finances film production and promotes C===:J talents worldwide," and a 
screenshot from thel !website indicates that the films it co-produced "have met with success, 
receiving nominations and winning prizes in important festivals both inside and outside I l" 
However, the record does not contain sufficient corroborating evidence of the organization's 
distinguished reputation. 9 
For the above reasons, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of 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 )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
9 Id. at 10 ( defining Merriam-Webster's Dictiona1y definition of "distinguished" as marked by eminence, distinction, or 
excellence). 
7 
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