dismissed EB-1A Case: Television And Film Production

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 5, 2024 In Re: 30001624 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a television and film producer, 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 )(1 )(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 the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements for the classification by establishing her 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or by meeting three of the ten evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
As a preliminary matter, we acknowledge that the Petitioner has been the Beneficiary of an approved 
0-1 B petition. Although USC IS has approved at least one O-lB nonimmigrant visa petition filed on 
behalf of the Petitioner, this prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying an immigrant visa 
petition which is adjudicated based on a different statute, regulations, and case law. The nonimmigrant 
and immigrant categories have different criteria, definitions and standards for persons working in the 
arts. "Extraordinary ability in the field of arts" in the nonimmigrant 0-1 B category means distinction. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). But in the immigrant context, "extraordinary ability" reflects that the 
individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submitted a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion; a copy of the 
Director's decision; and material originally included with her petition. The Petitioner's brief presents 
explanations previously submitted for why the record establishes her eligibility and states that the 
Director's "denial of her employment-based immigrant visa petition should be reconsidered." An 
appeal must specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the 
unfavorable decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). The Petitioner does not specifically contest the 
Director's decision and requests only that the evidence of record be "reconsidered." While the 
Petitioner reiterates previous claims of eligibility, she does not point to any legal or factual error in the 
decision. 
We adopt and affirm the Director's decision. See Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 
(BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of 
adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that 
has squarely confronted the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight circuit 
courts in holding that appe11ate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they 
give "individualized consideration" to the case). The Director provided a detailed analysis of evidence 
submitted for each of the claimed criteria and discussed how the evidence did not sufficiently 
demonstrate that the Petitioner met each criterion. 
For example, while the record showed the Petitioner received awards, the Director determined, in part, 
that the record did not include documentation demonstrating that the awards were nationally or 
internationally recognized; the Director explained that national and international recognition comes 
through awareness and accolades conferred by those in the field and that recognition should be evident 
though specific means, such as through media coverage. 
As another example, the Director pointed out that, while the record showed the Petitioner's 
membership with an association in her field, the documentation submitted as evidence of membership 
requirements did not meet the plain language of the criterion; the Director listed the requirements and 
explained that they do not stipulate that members, including the Petitioner, obtained membership based 
on their outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields. 
As a final example, the Petitioner reviewed screenshots and articles from several websites that the 
Petitioner claimed were evidence of published material about her in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. The Director explained that the record did not include 
documentation showing that these websites constituted any form of media listed in the criterion. The 
Director also noted that several documents did not include certified English language translations and, 
therefore, would not be considered. 
The Director thoroughly analyzed the Petitioner's evidence and arguments and provided her with a 
compete decision reaching the correct conclusion. On appeal, as stated above, the Petitioner does not 
contest the Director's decision and reiterates the reasons she believes she meets the eligibility 
requirements for all of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner does not provide 
sufficient evidence to overcome the Director's conclusions. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2