dismissed EB-1A Case: Media Production

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19936837 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 18, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a producer and 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. § l 153(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 had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
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 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals 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 m 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 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 describes herself as a "Radio, Television, and Short Film producer, focusing primarily on 
journalism production." The Petitioner states that she has acted as a producer in Venezuela and, since 
2013, in the United States, in thel I area. Her work in the United States, discussed in more detail 
below, includes radio, television, and print work. A submitted article in the online news site La Nota 
Latina describes the Petitioner's "biggest project,! " as a "project ... to offer businesses, 
entrepreneurs, professionals and brands the possibility to promote themselves in a massive outlet." The 
record does not provide a more precise description of what I is, what it does, its format, or 
direct evidence of its activities. The Petitioner's "Letter of Intent to Continue Working as a Producer" 
does not mention! I 
The Petitioner holds 0-lB nonimmigrant status as an individual with extraordinary ability in the radio or 
television industry.1 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) records show thatl I I filed the nonimmigrant petition in 2014 to classify her as an 0-lB nonimmigrant. 2 
The Petitioner initially claimed that she received two major, internationally recognized awards, 
specifically I I Awards I I. (She received the awards in 
2014, after her arrival in the United States, but the awarding entity is in Venezuela. Materials 
relating to the award do not identify the specific projects for which she received the awards.) The 
Director determined that the Petitioner had not established that these awards are major, internationally 
1 We acknowledge that 0-1 status relates to extraordinary ability. Though the prior approval of an 0-1 petition may be a 
relevant consideration in adjudicating an immigrant petition for a person with extraordinary ability, it is not determinative. 
Eligibility as an 0-1 nonimmigrant does not automatically establish eligibility for immigrant extraordinary ability 
classification. Moreover, the 0-1 nonimmigrant classification has different definitions and standards for persons in the 
arts and the motion picture and television industry when compared to the definition and standard set forth for the immigrant 
with extraordinary ability. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(3), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
2 Her 0-1 B non immigrant status did not authorize the Petitioner to work for any employer other than I I between 
2014 and 2017 (at which time she obtained broader employment authorization . See 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(b )(13). In 2017, 
on Form G-325A, Biographic Information, the Petitioner identified __ as her only employer in the United States. 
Nevertheless, the present petition's record of proceeding does not contain any documentation froml or 
statements from its officials to establish how her work in the United States relates tol I 
2 
recognized awards, and the Petitioner does not pursue this claim on appeal. Because the Petitioner 
does not contest the Director's conclusions regarding this issue, we consider it to be abandoned. 3 We 
will discuss the awards further in the context oflesser awards under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Because the Petitioner has not shown that she received a major, internationally recognized award, she 
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 six of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii), Published material about the individual in professional or major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (vii), Display at artistic exhibitions or showcases; and 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met two of the criteria, pertaining to judging and display.4 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she also meets the other four claimed criteria. Upon review of 
the record, and as discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not satisfied 
those four remaining 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 initially claimed to satisfy this criterion through four awards: 
• 
• 
Award, Best Producer of the Year (2014); 
Award, Best Broadcaster of the Year (2014); 
• !Festival, Best Film Photography! I (2014); and 
• I Award, Best International Producer (2017). _________ 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner had not established that any of the awards are nationally or 
internationally recognized. On appeal, the Petitioner alleges no error regarding the award from the 
I I Festival. We address the other awards below. 
The Petitioner's evidence regarding the ________ Award consists of a letter from the 
president of the awarding entity, stating that the Petitioner won "[t]his unique award which recognizes 
the [Petitioner's] effort, popularity and excellence." The Petitioner asserts that this letter is, itself, the 
"award certificate"; there is no other evidence of the award in the record, nor any indication that such 
3 See Matter of R-A-M-, 25 T&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012) (stating that when a filing party fails to appeal an issue 
addressed in an adverse decision, that issue is waived). See also Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 
(11th Cir. 2005), citing United States v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-
CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiff's claims were abandoned as he failed to 
raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
4 Because this proceeding has not reached a final merits determination, we need not discuss whether or not the Petitioner's 
activities relating to judging and artistic display rise to the level of sustained national or international acclaim. Such 
discussion would not change the outcome of the appeal. 
3 
other evidence exists. At the time of the Director's decision, the record contained no evidence of the 
award's significance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits two short online articles ( each four to six sentences in length), published 
in 201 7, regarding the awards. The Petitioner does not explain why she did not submit these materials 
after the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), specifically requesting evidence of the awards' 
significance. Where a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given 
an opportunity to respond to that deficiency, we will not accept evidence offered for the first time on 
appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter ofObaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 
(BIA 1988). Furthermore, the two brief articles would have been material to the outcome of the appeal. 
The articles name some recipients of the award (not the Petitioner), but do not indicate that the award is 
nationally or internationally recognized. 
The Petitioner documents her receipt oftwol I Awards in 2014, as described above, but 
initially she did not submit any independent, objective evidence to establish the national or international 
recognition of those awards. Instead, she submits letters from the president and other officials of the 
awarding entity and printouts from that entity's own website. These individuals attest that "[t]he is 
the most important award given internationally by Venezuela," but such statements alone do not constitute 
sufficient independent, objective evidence of the national or international significance of the award or 
pnze. 
In the RFE, the Director requested documentary evidence of the award's significance and recognition, 
and "[p]ublic announcement ... issued by the granting organization." In response, the Petitioner 
submitted further statements from officials of the awarding organization. However, the evidence in the 
record, consisting of statements from such officials and no other supporting evidence, is insufficient 
to establish the organization's distinguished reputation by a preponderance of the evidence. 
In terms of publicity and coverage, the Petitioner submitted printouts of two online articles, neither of 
which identifies its author. A 2016 article from La Nata Latina states: "With 61 years of history, the 
prestigious de Venezuela' debuts in the city of I with the 
Awards,' with the purpose of recognizing the work of Latino talent who live in the 
This wording implies that the pool of potential recipients is local rather than national or international. 
A 2017 article from El Universal announces that I will recognize national talent" at an 
awards gala inl !Venezuela, celebrating "50 years of the I The El Universal 
article also indicates that "[t]he I is the only Venezuelan award that belongs to the 
I an organization also said to include the Latin Gramm Golden Globe, 
and other well-known awards. But the record contains no evidence from the ort this 
claim, establish the significance of that membership, or even confirm the existence of the itself. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner had not sufficiently established the national or international 
recognition of the Award. The Director noted that it was not even clear that all the evidence relates 
to the same award, because some record materials refer to the and others to the I I I I Also, with regard to the length of time the award has existed, the 
reference to "61 years" in the 2016 article is not consistent with the reference to "50 years" in the 201 7 
article. 
4 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that "[t]he I Award was founded or 11958" 
in Venezuela, but does not explain why an article from 2017 referred to the award's 50th anniversary. 
The Petitioner submits further news articles, dated between 2016 and 2018, to support the contention that 
"the _____ Awards ... [have] in fact received significant media attention at a national or 
international level." Even if we were to set aside concerns as to wh the Petitioner did not submit this 
evidence in response to the RFE, these articles all refer to the whereas the Petitioner's own 
award documentation refers consistently to the Although the Director had 
already raised this issue, the Petitioner, on appeal, does not address the issue or establish that these 
different terms refer to the same award. 
As explained above, the Petitioner has not established that her awards meet the regulatory requirements. 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification 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 initially claimed that she meets this criterion through her membership in three 
organizations in Venezuela: the Association of Venezuelan Journalists Overseas (APEVEX); the 
National Board of Journalists of Venezuela; and the Radio, Theater, Movies, TV and Related Workers 
Union of the State of Miranda. The Director concluded that the Petitioner had not shown that the 
organizations require outstanding achievements. 
On appeal, the Petitioner discusses her membership in only one association, APEVEX; she does not allege 
error in the Director's conclusions regarding the other claimed memberships. 
In a printout in the record, APEVEX' s own website describes the organization as a "trade union" that 
"represent[ s] the interests of our members and stimulate[ s] their professional growth in the United States." 
A letter from the president of APEVEX lists three "Membership Requirements": a college diploma, a 
resume, and evidence of at least three years of employment with a news organization. APEVEX' s articles 
of organization do not indicate that the organization exists to recognize the most accomplished individuals 
in the field, or that outstanding achievements are required for membership; rather, they state that 
"APEVEX will group together all Venezuelan journalists living in the United States and other countries 
who share the same goals and are willing to work to achieve them." 
Memberships in organizations that admit members based on education or experience, and trade unions 
that admit members based on occupation, are not qualifying memberships to meet the regulation. See 
6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2 appendix. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that "experts in the field are 
responsible for choosing prospective members based on their qualifications and achievements in the 
field." Because the membership requirements are minimal (based on factors such as occupation, 
experience, and education) rather than necessarily outstanding achievements, information about who 
selects new members cannot show that APEVEX membership meets the regulatory requirements. 
The Petitioner has not shown that APEVEX requires outstanding achievements of its members. 
5 
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). 
Letters from employers, attesting to an employee's role in the organization, must contain detailed and 
probative information that specifically addresses how the person's role for the organization or 
establishment was leading or critical. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2 appendix. In determining whether an 
organization or establishment has a distinguished reputation, the relative size or longevity of an 
organization or establishment is not in and of itself a determining factor. Rather, the organization or 
establishment must be recognized as having a distinguished reputation. Id. Merriam-Webster's online 
dictionary defines distinguished as "marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence or befitting an 
eminent person." 5 
The Petitioner initially asserted that she satisfies this criterion through her work for two employers in the 
I !Florida area. ecifically, she asserts that she "was responsible for the entire production of [a] 
talk show" for and she "is responsible for the production of all journalism content for" 
She later claimed a qualifying role for a thirdl I entity, 
The founder and president of __________ based in describes the company as 
"an Advertising Agency, dedicated to the elaboration of an International Magazine," also called 
I I The magazine published a one-page interview with the Petitioner in itsl I 
2016 issue. The Petitioner specifically cites this article as evidence of her leading or critical role with the 
magazine's publisher, but the article does not describe her role except to refer to her as a "Journalist." 
The first letter from the company president contained few details about the nature of the Petitioner's work 
for the company. In response to the RFE, he stated: 
[The Petitioner] has worked with me in multiple projects for the magazine as journalist 
and producer, writing, selling, covering and organizing events, managing social media, 
interviewing, among many other activities. . . . Among [her] key responsibilities ... are: 
talent scouting for interviews, interview conducting, writing and preparation; looking for 
possible clients and sponsors; organizing and executing all the events at the magazine, 
specially monthly cover parties to honor different personalities; covering city events and 
producing articles and photos; managing content for social media, producing posts and 
videos. 
The listed responsibilities appear to have only a small amount of overlap with the Petitioner's self­
described occupation as a "Radio, Television, and Short Film producer." We need not discuss the nature 
of the Petitioner's role in great detail, however, because the Petitioner has not established thatl I I I has a distinguished reputation. 
Prior to the appeal, a section of the record labeled"[ e ]vidence of distinguished 
reputation" consisted solely of a printout from the digital publishing platform! I showing the covers 
of several issues of the magazine. The printout documents the magazine's existence, but not the 
reputation of the organization that publishes it. The Petitioner has not submitted any evidence to indicate 
5 See https://www .merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/ distinguished. 
6 
that only accepts material from organizations with a distinguished reputation, or otherwise 
explained why the Issuu printout is evidence of a distinguished reputation. 
The Petitioner states, on appeal, "[w ]e respectfully submit . . . independent, objective evidence to 
document the eminence, distinction, and excellence ofl But the Petitioner does 
not say what this evidence is, or cite to any exhibit in the record. The founder's own claims about the 
company he established are, by definition, not "independent, objective evidence" of that company's 
distinguished reputation. The appellate brief includes the claim that I has been a mainstay in 
the advertising market since 1998," but the unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. 
Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534 n.2 ( citing Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 
(BIA 1980)). 
The vice president and general manager of I in I Florida, states that the 
Beneficiary produced I I and I (The record does not 
specify whether these were television or radio programs.) The official does not explain how the 
Petitioner's work on two programs was leading or critical for the studio at the organizational level, and 
the Petitioner submits no other information or evidence regarding the shows. 
The Petitioner submitted no independent evidence of the reputation of I in I I The 
Petitioner submits evidence about the larger I described as "a global 
enterprise" with television channels throughout Latin America. The Petitioner has not established 
whether the shows she produced aired throughout the I different territories, or only in 
the area wherel lis located. The record contains no statement from any 
official of the international organization, and no other evidence that the Petitioner performed in a leading 
and critical role for the entire organization. 
The general manager of in states that the Petitioner "worked for this company 
from January 16th 2015 to May 21st 2015 as the Producer of the entertainment show titled 
The network's founder and director states that the Petitioner's responsibilities ranged from "[ o ]rganizing 
weekly meetings with her team" and "[b]]eing TV host" to "[h]]andl[ing] the teleprompter" and "cover[ing] 
for camera operators." Whatever the importance of these activities to a particular program, the Petitioner 
has not established that I I is an organization or establishment with a distinguished reputation. 
A web printout describes as comprising "more than 30 FM Radio Stations, with 
presence in South America, the Caribbean, Europe and now North America." The network is based in 
Venezuela, but the letter quoted above does not specify whetherl I was broadcast throughout 
the network or only its affiliate, nor does it establish that the Petitioner's role was leading or critical 
for the entire network. Because the background information relates to the entire network, it does not show 
that the !station where the Petitioner worked has a distinguished reputation in its own right. 
Apart from the organizations that the Petitioner specifically identifies, she also cites more general letters 
of support and recommendation from individuals who have worked with her in various capacities. The 
Petitioner does not say how these letters establish her leading or critical role with any specific organization 
or establishment with a distinguished reputation. Instead, the letters offer general praise for the 
Petitioner's talent and accomplishments. 
7 
For the above reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied the requirements of this regulatory 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 states: "Because of her longstanding career as a producer, she has been recognized 
extensively in major nationally circulated newspapers and magazines." Despite the claim of "extensive" 
coverage, the Petitioner submits copies of only two articles, both from 2016. One article appeared in an 
online publication called La Nata Latina, the other in I I 
As noted above, is either an employer or client of the Petitioner (the exact 
nature of the relationship is unclear from the record). The interview in that company's magazine consists 
largely of biographical material and very general information about the Petitioner's past and ongoing 
work. The Petitioner does not provide circulation information forl I indicating 
that such information is unnecessary because it is a "trade journal," but the regulation specifically refers 
to "major trade publications." Although the word I is in the magazine's title, magazine 
covers reproduced in the record show the names of several cities, all in Southeast Florida, consistent with 
a regional rather than international publication. The record does not establish the existence of editions in 
other localities. In this respect, it is relevant that the magazine's editor claims that the "magazine ... [is] 
one of the favorites in South Florida." 
The article from La Nata Latina does not identify an author as the regulation requires. Furthermore, the 
regulation requires the published material to be about the Petitioner's "work in the field in which 
classification is sought." The Petitioner seeks, in her words, "classification as an Alien of Extraordinary 
Ability in the Arts as a Producer" ( emphasis in original), but the article refers to her as a "journalist," 
and the discussion of her work is limited to mention of I in terms so general that the nature 
of the project is difficult to discern. 
On appeal, the Petitioner devotes considerable attention to the reliability of SimilarWeb as a source of 
online readership data. But the SimilarWeb printout in the record does not support the Petitioner's claim 
that La Nata Latina is a major publication. It has a "Global Rank" of 639,905; a "Country Rank" of 
53,291 in Mexico (the country for which such data was provided); and a "Category Rank" of29,373. The 
Petitioner does not explain how these statistics support her claims. The Petitioner notes that the site 
received 79,700 visits in May 2017, but the Petitioner does not establish that this raw number is consistent 
with major media, particularly in light of what appear to be very low rankings, shown above. The printout 
the Petitioner submitted also indicates that most visitors to the site looked at only one page and left the 
site within 30 seconds. 
The Petitioner has not established that she has been the subject of coverage in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
8 
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. 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 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 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 recognition of her work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim or demonstrates 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 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). The record minimally documents her work in Venezuela, and her work in 
the United States appears to have been limited to local Spanish-language media in the Miami area. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal 
will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9