dismissed EB-1A Case: Producer

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.9 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICECENTER Date: MAR 0 3 z~OCJ 
SRC 07 156 5 1774 
IN RE: 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned 
to the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to 
have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.5 for the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided 
your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
5 103S(a)(l)(i). 
V oh F. Grissom, Acting Chief 
zdministrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Texas Service Center. The petition is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on 
appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. The director determined the petitioner had not 
established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. - Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified 
immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) 
through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. - An alien is described in this 
subparagraph if - 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national 
or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized 
in the field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area 
of extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that 
the individual is one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to 
establish that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her 
field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria 
will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that he 
has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
The petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a producer. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director, guided by prior counsel's brief, erred in his 
application of the law.' Counsel asserts, "The standard applicable to the Petitioner is that of an 
' Different counsel represents the petitioner on appeal. The petitioner's previous counsel will be referred to as "prior 
counsel" in this decision. 
Alien of extraordinary achievement in lieu of the standard of an Alien of extraordinary abilities 
in the sciences, education, business, or athletics." Counsel cites the standards for those applying 
for a nonimmigrant visa petition pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
5 1 101 (a)(l5)(O)(i) and 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(ii). Counsel then analyzes the petitioner's 
evidence according to the criteria for those aliens seeking entry into the United States as an alien 
of extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or television industry as enumerated in 
8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(o)(v). Counsel asserts that as the petitioner has met at least three of the criteria 
listed in 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(o)(v), his petition for permanent legal status under section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), should be approved. 
Counsel's assertions are disingenuous and completely without merit. First, section 
101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act provides nonimrnigrant classification to a qualified alien who has 
extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics or, "with regard to motion 
picture and television productions[, has] a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievements." 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act does not provide a separate category for those who can 
demonstrate extraordinary achievements in motion picture or television production. Second, as 
previously noted, section 10 1 (a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act pertains to aliens seeking temporary, 
nonimrnigrant status while section 203(b)(l)(A) applies to those who seek permanent status as 
immigrants. Congress has not made the requirements for these two visa classifications 
interchangeable. Counsel has cited no statute, case law or policy that would support his 
conclusions. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien seeking classification as an alien 
of extraordinary ability must demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and must 
establish through extensive documentation that his or her achievements have been recognized in 
the field. The alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of 
a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). Barring the alien's 
receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be 
satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that he claims meets the following criteria. 
2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The petitioner claims to meet his criterion based on his award of a Suncoast Regional Emmy for 
Outstanding Entertainment Program in 2003. In his April 18, 2007 letter accompanying the 
petition, prior counsel, apparently quoting information fiom the Suncoast Chapter of the National 
Academy of Television of Arts and Sciences, stated: 
2 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
We are a nonprofit membership organization dedicated to excellence in television, 
known for annual EMMY AWARDS. The Suncoast Chapter of the national 
Academy of Television Arts and Sciences is a nonprofit Florida corporation 
dedicated to excellence in television. We offer annual Emmy Awards called The 
Suncoast Regional Emmy Awards to television markets in the entire State of 
Florida, Alexandria, Baton Rouge, Lafayette, Lake Charles and New Orleans, 
Louisiana, Mobile, Alabama, Thomasville, Georgia and Puerto Rico. The Chapter 
is composed of professional people who work in television or students who are 
studying television in colleges or universities and aspire to become professionals. 
[Emphasis in original.] 
No documentation in the record supports any of the statements made by counsel. Without 
documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the 
petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. 
Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 
(BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). With the petition, 
the petitioner submitted pictures apparently of himself holding and kissing an Emmy statue. 
There is also a group photo in which another individual is holding the statue. None of these 
photos serve to establish that the petitioner personally received the Emmy for work in his field of 
endeavor. 
In response to the director's request for evidence (WE) dated July 6, 2007, the petitioner 
submitted a copy of a page from the website of the National Television Academy accessed on 
September 26, 2007. The page shows the history of the organization, and states that it is 
composed of a national office headquartered in New York City and 20 chapters nationwide. The 
document indicates that the Academy "recognizes excellence in television with the coveted 
Emmy Award." The document does not mention any awards made by the organization's 
chapters. 
The director denied the petition, stating that according to the organization's website, the 
Suncoast Chapter Emmys are awarded on a regional basis and is therefore a regional award 
rather than nationally or internationally recognized. On appeal, counsel contests this assessment, 
stating that "the mere use of the word EMMY speaks volume of the award," and that the fact that 
the National Academy has 20 chapters nationwide does not "lessen the value or prestige" of the 
award. Counsel further asserts that as the area included in the "regional" consideration includes 
Puerto Rico, the award takes on an "international standing." 
Counsel's argument regarding Puerto Rico is without merit. Puerto Rico is a U.S. possession and 
is considered part of the United States and its territories. Its inclusion into consideration for the 
regional Emmy award by the Suncoast Chapter does not change the scope or designation of the 
award as other than limited to a specified region within the United States. 
However, counsel's argument regarding the value and distinction of the Emmy brand is more 
compelling. We agree that the Ernmy award carries the connotation of excellence in television. 
Nevertheless, the recognition associated with the Emmy is that of the national awards. The 
petitioner has submitted no evidence to establish that an Emrny awarded at a regional level 
carries the same national or international recognition as awards of excellence as the national 
awards. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of a "Call for Entries" for the 2007 Suncoast Regional Ernrny 
awards. The petitioner does not indicate whether the rules for eligibility in 2007 were the same 
as those in 2003, when he won his award. However, assuming that the rules are the same, the 
"eligibility" the rule provides: 
Entries must have been produced for the chapter's designated awards area and 
must have had their first broadcast or cable cast in that awards area during the 
eligibility period . . . Entries must not have been available for viewing by more 
than 50% of the U.S. television homes during the eligibility year. Entries that are 
available to more than 50% of the U.S. television homes should be submitted to 
The National Television Academy's national awards. 
Although there are exceptions to the 50% rule, it is clear that the regional awards are not 
intended to recognize achievement on a national level. Accordingly, the petitioner's evidence 
does not establish that the Suncoast Regional Emmy is nationally or internationally recognized. 
Further, as discussed, the petitioner has failed to establish that the Emmy was awarded to him 
rather than a team or another individual with whom he worked. Accordingly, the petitioner has 
not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
As evidence that he meets this criterion, the petitioner submitted letters of recommendation from 
several individuals who attested to his talents, creativity and success as a producer. Nonetheless, 
none attested that the petitioner had made a contribution of major significance to motion pictures 
or television production. 
Among those writing on the petitioner's behalf were: 
the petitioner was hired in 2003 "to generate video content for the magazine's CD supplement." 
While stating that the petitioner's "work in developing multilin a1 and multicultural 
programming has been very influential to all of us in the history," *did not explain 
how the petitioner's work has been influential for him or anyone else, nor did claim 
that the petitioner's work was in fact original or that the petitioner had made a contribution of 
major significance to the field. 
an associate producer at ESPN Deportes La Revista, who stated: 
Reaching the second and third generation Latinos is becoming a challenge among 
Producers and Media Executives who have a hard time understanding this new 
cultural group emerging as strong consumers of entertainment Media. [The 
petitioner] has laid very interesting work frames that have proven successful and 
which I currently try to build on. 
did not identify any specifics of the petitioner's "work frames." Further, while he 
stated that he is trying to build on the petitioner's work, he did not state that this work was 
original rather than "interesting" or that his work constitutes a major contribution to producing 
for television or film. 
[Telemundo] network not only contributed to its success, but also played a historical role in 
expanding cable television programming to Spanish speaking viewers, as well as paving the way 
for more multicultural programming to emerge." While Telemundo itself may have paved the 
way for other multicultural programming, does not explain how the petitioner was 
individually responsible for expanding cable television programming to a Spanish speaking 
audience. Her testimonial falls short of claiming that the beneficiary's initiatives were original 
contributions of major significance to producing. The petitioner has not established that he 
meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
In his letter accompanying the petition, prior counsel stated that, as a producer, the petitioner's 
"work has been aired in countless television programs/stations." The wording of this criterion 
indicates it is intended for those in the visual arts such as sculptors and painters. We note that 
television programs or stations are not "artistic exhibitions or showcases." Further, activities that 
nominally fall under a given regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) do not demonstrate 
national or international acclaim if they are inherent or routine in the occupation itself. As a 
producer of television shows, the purpose of the petitioner's work is to be broadcast on television 
stations. The petitioner submitted no documentation to indicate that his work was the subject of 
any specific television program. 
The evidence does not establish that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly 
demonstrate that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of 
the small percentage who has risen to the very top of his field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as 
a producer to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of hs field. The 
evidence indicates that the petitioner is a talented producer, but is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field. Therefore, the 
petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the 
petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.