dismissed EB-1A Case: Screenwriting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF K-L-W-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 20, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a screenwriter and story consultant, seeks classification as an alien 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 record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner has received a major, internationally recognized award or met 
the requirements of at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that in addition to the two criteria which the Director found that she 
met, the evidence shows that she also meets four additional criteria and is eligible for the classification 
she seeks. 
Upon de nova 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. 
Matter of K-L-W-
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) 
( 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 of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner met two of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x), relating to the artistic display of her work and her participation as a judge of the work of others in 
her field. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she also meets four additional evidentiary criteria. 
After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that while she satisfies the initial evidentiary 
requirement of meeting at least three of the criteria, the record does not establish that she has enjoyed 
sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the few at the very top of her field. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
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) 
Several categories of evidence were submitted in support of this criterion. 1 We will first consider the 
reviews of the performances of the Petitioner's theatre adaptations. In his decision, the Director noted 
that in order to meet the requirements of this criterion, the published material must not only focus on 
an individual's work, but also must be about the individual. The reviews clearly identify the Petitioner 
as the creator of the plays, in most cases noting that she adapted the original stories ofi I 
1 As the Petitioner concedes in her brief that the academic articles in the record which cite to her writings are not about her 
and her work, we will not analyze that evidence under this criterion. 
2 
Matter of K-L-W-
~--~I and include the writer's opinion of the results of her work. However, none of the reviews 
go beyond these mentions to discuss her career, background or other personal elements, and thus they 
cannot be considered to be about her. 
On appeal the Petitioner refers to the two district court decisions cited by the Director 2 in support of 
the premise that articles about organizations, teams or productions are not about the individual 
participants. She asserts that both decisions focus on actors, whereas as a writer she created these 
plays, and thus any media concerning the plays are about her and her work. We must first note that 
this is not accurate, as one of the decisions involved a table tennis athlete. More importantly, while 
we acknowledge that the Petitioner's role in creating these performances most likely exceeded that of 
others involved, the same reasoning from those decisions is applicable: published material which 
includes a brief mention of an individual but primarily focuses on a group effort is not considered to 
be about that individual and his or her work. 
For similar reasons, the articles in which the Petitioner is quoted, providing her expert opinion on the 
subject of the article, are not about her. These include an article in Investor's Business Daily about 
the movies ofl I and a story in The Stage on the topic of I . I 
Another type of evidence submitted consists of two interviews of the Petitioner, both of which are 
about her an~_h.er....~prk. The first appeared on a blog, and presents her views on a variety of issues 
related to thel___Jfilm genre. The record includes information about the interviewer and author of 
the blog, who describes herself as a nationally-recognized health and sexuality writer. However, this 
evidence does not establish that the blog or the website on which it was posted should be considered 
to be either related to the Petitioner's profession or to be major media. 
Similarly, the second interview appears on the website of the I lscreenwriting Competition as 
one of several profiles of judges for the competition. But while the evidence shows thatl lis an 
organization focused on providing resources for screenwriters, it does not establish that the interview 
appeared in a publication, whether professional, trade or other major media. 
For all of the reasons stated above, the record does not establish that the Petitioner meets this 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 specialization for which 
class[fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
In his decision, the Director found that the evidence regarding the Petitioner's volunteer service for 
the~ I sufficient to establish her service as a judge. A letter 
from I chief Operating Officer, indicates that in 2011 the Petitioner "served on the 
programming team, rating and reviewing movies to facilitate the final selection for the festival." In 
addition, the evidence establishes that the Petitioner has served as a judge of screenplays for the 
2 Noroozi v. Napolitano, 905 F.Supp.2d. 535, 545 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) and Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at 
*l, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8. 2008). 
3 
Matter of K-L-W-
~--~I film festival and thel bcreenplay competition for several years. As such, we agree 
with the Director and find that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has she or 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. 
As documentation of her contributions as a playwright, the Petitioner submitted theatrical reviews, 
promotional materials, and reference letters which show that she has created theatre adaptations which 
have been performed and critically reviewed. As noted above, these adaptations are taken from the 
works ofl I were mainly performed at the I I Festival, and 
received mixed reviews. This evidence shows that she has produced original artistic works, but does 
not establish them as contributions of major significance. For exam le a letter from I I 
who indicates that he is currently an associate director at a theatre venue in 
the United Kingdom, verifies that he directed the Petitioner's production 
I 11 I writes that the play enjoyed successful tours of~th_e_U_n-it_e_d_K-in_g_d_o_m_a_n~d 
Poland, and that he later also directed the Petitioner's adaptation of I I Although he states 
that his involvement with these productions significantly advanced his career and is complimentary 
about the Petitioner's work, he does not suggest that it has had an impact on the fields of playwriting 
or screenwriting. 
Another letter, from I I founder and Artistic Director of Uenues, confirms that the 
Petitioner served as his theatre's Executive Producer and that her adaptations were produced annually 
for twenty years. I lstates that the Petitioner "has made a superlative and crucial creative 
contribution to the development and success of Otheatre," but his letter does not explain how this 
contribution to a single theatre venue or organization has influenced or impacted the broader field of 
playwriting. 
As for the other aspects of the Petitioner's writing career, the evidence shows that she has served as a 
story consultant for several movie and television projects, and written numerous articles about 
screenwriting and the I I film genre. In her brief on appeal, the Petitioner points to several 
reference letters in support of her assertion that these accomplishments are contributions of major 
significance to the field of screenwriting and story consultancy. 3 
Regardirg herl work as a story consultant, the Petitioner refers to a letter from I I founder and 
CEO of Studios, and former CEO ofl I He writes that the Petitioner was his "go-to" 
story consultant for several years and contributed to the script development for many listed feature 
films, and describes her work as "indispensable" on several! I projects. However, while D 
3 All of the reference letters were thoroughly reviewed, including those not specifically mentioned in this decision. 
4 
Matter of K-L-W-
Dis complimentary of her work, he does not detail the specific nature of the Petitioner's 
contributions to these films, or describe how her work has influenced the screenwriting field. 
A letter froml I founder of thel !Production studio, rrovides greater detail on the 
Petitioner's work on a television show he is developing. I explains that her suggested 
changes to the story and characters for this project resulted in positive feedback from executives, and 
that he looks forward to her help in developing a pilot episode. In addition, similar but less detailed 
letters confirm that the Petitioner has contributed as a story consultant to advise other writers and 
producers on several other film and television scripts, some of which are still in the development stage. 
While this evidence demonstrates that she has successfully consulted on many story projects, it does 
not establish that the impact of her consulting work extends beyond these individual projects. 
The Petitioner also points to evidence of her work as a columnist with I I In addition to the 
copies of her columns, which will be farther discussed in relation to the criterion below, she submits 
a letter froml I Managing Editor of I I Mrl I verifies that 
the Petitioner has contributed more than 60 essays, in addition to book reviews, interviews, and other 
work. He also indicates that other writers, as well as academics, have referenced her work in their 
own published writings. In addition, a reference letter froml I who describes herself as a 
television writer and editor in thel I genre, indicates that she has applied lessons from the 
Petitioner'~ I column in her own writing, and knows of other writers who have done 
the same. 
The record includes several dissertations and academic journal articles which include citations, and in 
some cases discussion, of the Petitioner's work. However, the majority of these do not cite her 
columns and other materials written forl I but instead reference content from the Petitioner's 
websites; I l billed as a reference for media studies students and teachers, and 
I I "a decade by decade guide to thel lmovie genre." In addition, many of 
the citations to these websites reference content on camera angles and advertising, as opposed to 
writing or storytelling techniques. Accordingly, while the letters froml I and I I 
suggest that many writers have been influenced by the Petitioner's work, the documentary evidence 
does not show that her columns written fo~ I, or the content on her websites, have remarkably 
impacted or influenced the broader field of screenwriting and story consulting. 
For all of the reasons explained above, the Petitioner has not established that she 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 Director found that the evidence ,egardjng tte Petitioner's writings published at her own websites, 
as well as those ofl I and I._ ___ ____._, did not establish that they were one of the qualifying 
types of media under this criterion. On appeal, the Petitioner focuses on the evidence of her articles 
written forl ( as well as movie reviews she wrote for the.__ ____________ __. 
website and an article about a film preservation project which was published in The Academy Report, 
5 
Matter of K-L-W-
a magazine for members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.4 She refers to reviews 
of thel I website and services that were posted on other websites, as well as the letter from 
.__ _____ _.!which explains that the website provides writing advice and writing classes "designed 
to meet the needs of professional and aspiring writers." This evidence does not establish that 
I I and its online magazine is targeted exclusively towards professional writers; rather, it also 
includes a broader audience of aspiring writers, students, and amateurs. Accordingly, the Petitioner 
has not shown that her columns appearing on thel !website were published in a professional 
or major trade publication. 
In addition, although not addressed by the Director, we note that scholarly articles are written for 
"learned" persons in that field. Learned persons include all persons having profound knowledge of a 
field. 5 Again, the materials regarding I I indicate that it provides writing training classes as 
well as writing advice, and is therefore intended to be used by those seeking to gain knowledge to 
improve their writing and begin or advance their careers as writers, rather than exclusively learned 
persons. Therefore, the Petitioner's articles published on I ldo not constitute scholarly 
articles. 
Regarding the film reviews authored by the Petitioner for the I I we first note that the evidence 
does not establish thatl !website on which these reviews were posted qualifies as a professional 
or major trade publication or other major media. The record in this matter includes a Wikipedia article 
about thel I as well as a letter from I I Chief Operating Officer ofc=] 
neither of which provide information about either the target audience of the website or its circulation. 6 
Further, the Petitioner has not established that these movie reviews were written for learned persons 
in her field of screenwrjtjng and ,tory consultancy, as opposed to film enthusiasts and other members 
of the public attendin~~--~I 
The evidence re arding the Petitioner's article appearing in The Academy Report includes a letter from 
-------.---' Publications Manager for the '------------------------' .__ ____ _.who confirms that the Petitioner will be writing the article for the Academy's membership 
magazine. Although the Petitioner describes this publication as "the most "major" of all the 
professional or trade publication evidence submitted," the record lacks evidence of whether 
membership to the Academy is open only to professionals in motion picture fields including 
screenwriting, or whether others such as amateurs or enthusiasts may also receive the magazine. She 
has therefore not established that The Academy Report qualifies as a professional or major trade 
publication. Further, the evidence does not establish that either the subject of the article, film 
preservation, or its intended readership support its classification as a scholarly article written for those 
in the screenwriting and story consultancy field. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
4 We note that on appe_l rbe Petitioner does uqt challenge the Director's decision regarding the material on her websites, 
.__ _____ _. andl~. ------~J or that posted onl I We will therefore not consider this 
material in our discussion of this criterion. 
5 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 4 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html, at 9. 
6 Id. 
6 
Matter of K-L-W-
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 evidence establishes that the Petitioner has adapted several children's plays, primarily produced 
bDheatre for the I I F es ti val. We therefore agree with the Director that she meets 
this criterion. 
Evidence that the individual 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) 
A leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall organizational hierarchy and through 
the role's matching duties. A critical role should be apparent from the Petitioner's impact on the 
organization or the establishment's activities. The Petitioner's performance in this role should establish 
whether the role was critical for the organization or establishment as a whole. 
In his decision, the Director found that the Petitioner's role as a volunteer mentor forl l and as 
a former student and, later, panel member at the University ofl I had not been established as 
leading or critical roles for those organizations. Further, while not making a finding regarding her role 
for the I I Theatre Company, he concluded that it had not acquired a distinguished reputation 
in its brief history. 
On appeal, the Petitioner concedes that her roles for I O I an<l I lwere neither leading nor 
critical, but asserts that I trheatre Company has earned a distinguished reputation despite 
having just been established in 2017. In addition, she asserts that she~ played a leading or critical 
role for several other organizations, including! I I, LJ and Qheatre. 
The evidence indicates that the Petitioner served as a volunteer forD a columnist for I 
and a screenplay judge for thel IScreenwriting Competition. None of these positio._n_s_a_r_e_, b_y_. 
their nature, leading roles within their respective organizations, and despite the Petitioner's being 
named as a "volunteer of the~year"I for I I does not suggest in her letter that her 
contributions had an impact o overall. Similarly, representatives ofl I and I I 
submitted reference letters concerning the quality and importance of the Petitioner's work; ~j' they 
11 
do not establish that it had a critical impact on those organizations as a whole. For example 
I I confirms in his letter that the Petitioner has been serving as a judge for the 
Screenwriting Competition since 2008 and is "a vital and leading member of our reading panel" and 
is the longest-serving judge for the organization, but he does not articulate an impact that the Petitioner 
has made to the overall organization. 
Regarding the Petitioner's activities withl tTheatre Company, the evidence establishes that 
she has performed in a leading role as a Board member. In support of its reputation, the Petitioner 
refers to l'-'-1..,..,,,.,.....,._,,'--""-0>/"t the company's inaugural production in 2017 received several local awards, 
includin Theater A wards for the two lead actors and the playwright, andl~----~ 
awards for one of the lead actors and the playwright. While we acknowledge ~------~ 
7 
Matter of K-L-W-
that the longevity of an organization is not dispositive, it remains a factor when determining whether 
it has achieved a distinguished reputation. In addition, we note that the I I itself was not the 
recipient of these awards. Accordingly, this evidence does not establish that it has a distinguished 
reputation in the broader theatrical community. 
Two reference letters from I I founder and director of I establish that the 
Petitioner's role as supervising judge and member of the festival board is a leading one for the 
~ization. The Petitioner also submitted evidence of coverage of the festival in the form of several 
L___...,,...J some of which only list the results of the competition, and a 2011 article from the website of 
MovieMaker magazine naming it as one of.__ _____________ ___.' However, this 
evidence does not establish that the festival enjoys a distinguished reputation among film festivals at 
the national or international level. 
In summary, we conclude that the evidence establishes that the Petitioner's roles for I 
Theatre Company, I I and[]Theatre are or were leading or critical. However, ._it-d-oe_s_n_ot_. 
support the same conclusion regarding her role as a columnist forl I a screenplay judge for 
the L I Screen writing Competition, or a volunteer for D In addition, the evidence is 
insufficient to establish that those organizations for which she served in a leading or critical role have 
a distinguished reputation. As such, we agree with the Director and find that the Petitioner does not 
meet 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 1-140 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); 
IKEA US v. US Dept. ofJustice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 
F. Supp. 1103, ll08 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 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 evidence does not establish that the Petitioner received a major, internationally recognized award 
or meets three of the ten evidentiary criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final merits 
analysis determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in its entirety, and conclude that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the level of sustained acclaim and standing in her field required for the 
8 
Matter of K-L-W-
classification sought. For these reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that she qualifies for 
classification 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. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of K-L-W-, ID# 4131769 (AAO Sept. 20, 2019) 
9