dismissed EB-1A Case: Journalism

MATTER OF C-A-F-G-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 26, 2018 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a broadcast journalist, 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 Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had not satisfied any of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner offers additional documentation and a brief, contending that he meets at 
least three of the ten criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) 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 
.
Matter ofC-A-F-G-
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 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 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if it is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily 
apply to a beneficiary's occupation. 
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). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a broadcast journalist who is currently employed by 
Because he 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). In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner did not 
meet any of the initial evidentiary criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets six criteria. We have reviewed all of the evidence 
in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies the plain 
language requirements of at least three criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien'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). 
The Petitioner contends that his receipt of meet this 
criterion. In order to satisfy this criterion, a petitioner must demonstrate that his prizes or awards are 
2 
.
Matter ofC-A-F-G-
nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. 1 He submits a letter from 
creator of who opined that it "is recognized as an international event that honors and 
awards outstanding professionals in their field" and "is now recognized, in the industry, as a global 
reference for outstanding and excellence in journalism." In addition, described the 
selection criteria, indicated others who received awards, and explained why the Petitioner garnered 
awards from 2004 to 2017. 2 Furthermore , the Petitioner provides a CD indicating that it "contains 
various videos including one of and 
saluting the which are now a part of the event landscape." Moreover, 
the Petitioner presents various screenshots reflecting others who have received the awards, 
sponsors, and planned events in Florida, Japan, Italy, and the United Kingdom. 
Although indicated his personal opinion of the awards and detailed the selection process, 
he did not demonstrate that is nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the 
journalism field. Further , while the Petitioner ' s documentation reflects acknowledgment of by 
politicians in Florida and planned events in other countries, he did not establish that the journalism 
field recognizes as a national or international prize or award for excellence. 
In addition , the Petitioner argues that his receipt of the 
award in 1993 satisfies this criterion. The Petitioner offers a 
screenshot regarding the history of a letter from an unidentified author of 
confirming the Petitioner's receipt of the award and describing the history of and 
screenshots from espn.com.br announcing ESPN 's receipt of awards in 2011, 2014, 
and 2017. The documentation, however, does not show that the award is nationally or 
internationally recognized for excellence in his journalism field. Furthermore, while the ESPN 
screenshots reflect that "[t]he award is the most important of sports journalism in 
( emphasis added), the Petitioner did not establish that the is nationally or 
internationally recognized for excellence in the field, nor does the record include other evidence 
demonstrating such recognition. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he fulfills 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). 
The Petitioner argues that he "submits evidence demonstrating that there is published material about 
him in major trade publications & other major media, relating to his work in the field of broadcast 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form l-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 The Petitioner offers two plaques from evidencing his awards in 2015 and 2017. 
3 
.
Matter ofC-A-F-G-
journalism." Specifically, the Petitioner references screenshots from gazetanews.com, 
tenistasemacao.com.br, and celebritypictures.wiki. The record, however, does not reflect published 
material about him in professional or major trade publications or other major media, which include 
the title, date, and author. 3 
As it relates to gazetanews.com, the Petitioner provides two screenshots. The first screenshot 
reflects published material about him; however, it does not include the required title and author. 8 
C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(iii). The second screenshot is self-authored by the Petitioner regarding events in 
the Ultimate Fighting Championship and Super Bowl; it is not published material about him relating 
to his work. Articles that are not about a petitioner do not meet this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., 
Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *l, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a 
finding that articles regarding a show are not about the actor). Moreover, the article does not contain 
the required title and date. Further, the Petitioner claims that Gazeta Brazilian News "is one of the 
largest weekly Brazilian newspapers published in the United States reaching an average of 75,000 
readers each week." The Petitioner, however, did not include evidence of published material from 
Gazeta Brazilian News. Instead, as indicated above, the Petitioner presented screenshots posted on 
gazetanews.com , which he did not establish that the publication's website is a major medium. 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not support his assertions regarding Gazeta Brazilian News with 
corroborating evidence and did not show that such readership statistics is consistent with a major 
medium. 
Regarding tenistasemacao.com.br, the screenshots reflect a 2018 partial transcript of a 
podcast for The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the 
immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through 
adjudication. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )( 1 ). Here, the podcast occurred after the initial filing of the 
petition. Moreover, the Petitioner did not include the required author. Further, without the full 
transcript, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the podcast reflects published material about him, 
as the partial transcript only indicates that he will be the guest. He did not show whether the podcast 
was about him or whether he provided commentary regarding a tennis tournament. Finally, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that tenistasemacao.com.br is a major medium. 
Relating to celebritypictures. wiki, the screenshots reflect photographs of the Petitioner rather than 
published material about him. In addition, the Petitioner did not include the required title, date, and 
author of the screenshots. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not establish that the website is a major 
medium. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he satisfies this criterion. 
3 See also USC IS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7. 
4 
.
Matter ofC-A-F-G-
Evidence of the alien's participation , either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner provides evidence that he was one of the judges for the He 
also presents documentation regarding background information for a pioneer of 
soccer in Brazil. In addition, the Petitioner submits a screenshot from 
arquivosdofutebolbrasileiro.blogspot.com reflecting that the was created "[t]o 
encourage players to seek the goal and play with discipline, to reward good referees and motivate 
Brazilian soccer fans." Furthermore, sample awards include: most positive team, best player, best 
referee, top scorer, and best goalkeeper. 
In order to satisfy this criterion, a petitioner must show that he participated in the judging of the 
work of others in the same or allied field of specialization. 4 Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that judging soccer personnel is in the same or allied field of broadcast journalism. The Petitioner 
did not show, for example, that he judged other broadcast journalists, media personnel, or reporters. 
For these reasons , the Petitioner did not establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner contends that his documentary film, "expressively outlines the great 
importance and impact of the Portuguese language spoken outside of Brazil. " In addition , he argues 
that his documentary film of the musical group, , is a "major artistic contribution[] 
to the field of Journalism." In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner 
must establish that not only has he made original contributions but that they have been of major 
significance in the field. For example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been 
widely implemented throughout the field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have 
otherwise risen to a level of major significance. 
Regarding the Petitioner provides a copy of the documentary film and copies of 
screenshots from Y ouTube, indicating the it "is an unique documentary produced by 
and sponsored by the Although the Petitioner is 
credited with being one of the producers , he did not demonstrate that the documentary film is an 
original contribution of major significance in the field of broadcast journalism. The Petitioner, for 
example, did not establish that the documentary film has significantly influenced broadcast 
journalism in a major way. 
Similarly, as it relates to the Petitioner presents a copy of the documentary film 
and copies of screenshots from Y ouTube and Again , while the evidence shows 
that the Petitioner created the documentary film and provides background history regarding the 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8. 
5 
.
Matter ofC-A-F-G-
musical group, he did not demonstrate that has considerably impacted the broadcast 
journalism field or is otherwise viewed by his field as a contribution of major significance. 5 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The Petitioner argues that his documentary films discussed above fulfills this criterion. Further, he 
contends that this criterion "is in fact similar in nature to the previous criterion" because "[b ]oth 
require that the alien prove the existence of articles in the field." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires his "authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media."6 Furthermore, a scholarly article should be written for 
"learned" persons in the field. "Learned" is defined as having or demonstrating profound knowledge 
or scholarship. Learned persons include all persons having profound knowledge of a field.7 On the 
other hand, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), which has already been discussed above, 
requires original contributions of major significance in the field; it does not require the existence of 
articles in the field as asserted by the Petitioner. 
Here, the Petitioner did not establish that he authored scholarly articles in the field of broadcast 
journalism in professional or major trade publications or other major media. Instead, the record 
reflects that the Petitioner produced documentary films relating to the Portuguese language and a 
musical group. In addition, the Petitioner has not shown that his documentary films are for 
"learned" persons, rather for the general population. Moreover, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that his documentary films contain the characteristics of authored scholarly articles. Finally, the 
Petitioner did not show that he authored scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications 
or other major media.8 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that he satisfies this criterion. 
5 We note that the screenshots indicate that was shown at the 
Florida in September 2017, after the filing of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Regardless, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that the screening of his documentary is a contribution of major significance in the field of broadcast 
journalism. 
6 See USClS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005 .1, supra, at 9. 
7 Id. 
8 The record does not reflect the publication or showing of on a medium. Moreover, although the 
screenshots regarding indicate that the documentary film originally aired on . the Petitioner 
did not providing supporting evidence demonstrating that the television show is a major medium. 
6 
.
Matter ofC-A-F-G-
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). 
The Petitioner presents evidence reflecting that his documentary film, , discussed 
above, featured at an artistic exhibition. As such, he established that he fulfills this criterion. 
B. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Petitioner received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 
nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude 
USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard -
statute, regulations, and case law. Many Form I-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS 
approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 
(D.D.C. 2003); !KEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., 
Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajfd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Furthermore, our authority over the USCIS service centers, the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant 
visa petition, is comparable to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even 
if a service center director has approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an individual, we are 
not bound to follow that finding in the adjudication of another immigration petition. Louisiana 
Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
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. For 
the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofC-A-F-G-, ID# 1580174 (AAO Sept. 26, 2018)