dismissed EB-1A Case: Television Host

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : AUG . 29, 2023 In Re : 25767360 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Exceptional Ability) 
The Petitioner, a television host, 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 petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirement for this classification through 
evidence of either a one-time achievement or that he meets three of the alternative evidentiary criteria 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 1 We agreed with the Director's decision and dismissed the Petitioner 's 
appeal. The matter is now before us on combined motions to reopen and reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motions. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence . 8 C .F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2) . A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of 
proceedings at the time of the decision . 8 C .F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Our review on motion is limited to 
reviewing our latest decision . 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these 
requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. See Matter ofCoelho, 20 l&N Dec. 
464,473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome) . 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that we overlooked a number of items in our prior decision and that 
he has satisfied at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3). We note that 
contrary to the claim that we "completely ignored" the high salary criterion at 8 C.F.R . 
1 The Director determined that the Petitioner met the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) . 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix), as we explained in our decision, we reserved the issue2 because the Petitioner would 
not have been able to "fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria." 3 
Documentation ofthe alien 's receipt oflesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the.field ofendeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
As discussed in our prior decision, the evidence regarding the Petitioner's awards from Telenedelya 
and the Ukraine edition of Cosmopolitan does not establish that either award was nationally or 
internationally recognized for excellence in the field. In addition, we explained that none of the 
Petitioner's five claimed awards for the reality television show I !identify him as the 
recipient. 
On motion, the Petitioner continues to contend that he received the most votes from the Ukrainian 
people to win these awards. The Petitioner also explains that Cosmopolitan has a large circulation for 
the Ukrainian edition and, thus, Cosmopolitan awards are nationally recognized awards for excellence. 
In support, the Petitioner submits articles regarding Cosmopolitan magazine's circulation in Ukraine 
and its popularity worldwide. However, the record does not contain evidence showing that his awards, 
such as "Man of the Year" and "Telestar," are nationally or internationally recognized awards for 
excellence in the.field. 
With regard to the five awards for j lthe Petitioner states that he previously submitted 
a letter from the production company, I Iwhich confirms that he was the 
leading host and that he played an integral part in receiving the award. However, as we have explained, 
in order to satisfy the plain language of this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that he was the 
recipient of the prizes or awards. The record indicates that the show ~------~ received the 
five awards and not the Petitioner in particular. 4 
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) 
As explained in our prior decision, the Petitioner submitted articles from a variety of sources, some of 
which did not identify the author as required. Moreover, the Petitioner did not establish the 
significance of the provided statistics to show that they appeared in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
On motion, the Petitioner states that he submitted more than five articles that included the authors' 
names and dates of publication. Many of the remaining articles, however, do not appear to relate to 
2 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 T&N Dec. 516, n.7 
(declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
3 Because the Petitioner does not meet any additional criteria, we will again reserve this criterion. Id. 
4 See 6 USC1S Policy Manual, Appendices, supra, at F.2 (stating that the description of this type of evidence in the 
regulation indicates that the focus should be on the person's receipt of the awards or prizes, as opposed to his or her 
employer's receipt of the awards or prizes.) 
2 
his work in the field, but rather are interviews that ask questions about the "kind of girls" he likes, "the 
main thing" he looks for "when choosing a car," and "the best" football league. Regardless, he has 
not shown how their circulation compares to other publications. Thus, the Petitioner does not establish 
that these articles were published in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 5 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions ofmajor sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
We determined that the letters from colleagues, promotional information froml !channel, and 
Y ouTube screenshots did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's original work rises to the level of artistic 
or business-related contributions of major significance in the field. 
On motion, the Petitioner continues to contend that because he has created and produced several 
popular TV shows, has been a host on the 1 t has a large social media 
following, 6 and has endorsements and contracts wit~ Ihe has 
demonstrated that he meets this criterion. The issue here is not whether he has been a contributor in 
some manner, but rather that he must demonstrate that he has made original artistic contributions of 
major significance in the field of entertainment. Here, the Petitioner does not provide new information 
or evidence on motion to overcome our prior conclusions. 
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) 
On motion, the Petitioner states that "[t]he fact that.__________ __, has a distinguished 
reputation is not relevant because it is the larogram that matters" and provides a letter from the chief 
executive officer ofI and copies of 'l tratinf from 2016, 2017, 
and 2019. In addition, the Petitioner states that the Ukrainian channel that shows I I lis a national organization or establishment 'just as a business or political party or a church and 
thus has a distinguished reputation." 
In the letter from the chief executive officer of._________ ____. the author lists the various 
awards that the l I show has won and asserts that due to these awards and the popularity 
of the show,.___~ ______ __, has a distinguished reputation as it is the production company 
for the show. With regard to the Petitioner performing in a leading or critical role, the author states 
that the Petitioner "has always played the role of the protagonist of each episode of the 1 I 
c=lshow," which makes him the "leading role in a capacity of the TV host forl I c=./ The author farther states that "the production team [ for j ~ unanimously agreed 
that they owned [sic] the success to [the Petitioner] due to his professional acting, presentation, 
comedy skills, and his ability to charm the audiences." In addition, the author states that the Petitioner 
"contributed in a significant matter to screen writing efforts," which is a "critical contribution." The 
author also contends that the "seasons when [the Petitioner] was a co-host were the most popular 
5 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, Appendices, supra, at F.2 (indicating that evidence of published material in professional or 
major trade publications or in other major media publications should establish that the circulation ( on-line or in print) is 
high compared to other circulation statistics) 
6 While we acknowledge the error in FN 12 of our previous decision, the Petitioner has not established that his popularity 
on social media represents an original artistic or business-related contribution of major significance in the field. 
3 
seasons out of the entire lifetime of the~....------~~ show" and references the show's ratings 
from 2016, 2017, and 2019. 
The plain language of this criterion requires for the organizations or establishments to have a 
distinguished reputation, defined as "marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence or befitting an 
eminent person." 7 While the Petitioner was the lead host for l I I I he does not demonstrate how the shows in which he appeared,.........._ ___..___, 
izations or establishments consistent with this regulatory criterion. Moreover while 
' may have won various awards, the evidence is insufficient to establish that .________ ___, 
has a distinguished reputation. B
Regarding the Petitioner's invitation as a representative and liaison for the youth oti Ias we 
explained, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient information to establish that his role was leading 
or critical and provides no new evidence on motion to overcome this conclusion. 
Finally, we note that his role as a presenter at a charity event for Ukraine in New York on I I 
02023 occurred after the filing of the petition. Eligibility must be demonstrated at the time of filing. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12). 
For these reasons, the Petitioner does not establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk or video sales. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 
As we discussed in our prior decision, the letters from._l--~-----__.,l...,,andl II I and Y ouTube screenshots showing "views" of I I were insufficient to 
establish that the volume of sales or television revenue forl Ireflects the Petitioner's 
commercial successes relative to others involved in similar pursuits in the performing arts. 
On motion, the Petitioner submits additional information about 'I Iincluding 1....-~ 
.________ __.ratings for the show, and also mentions that he "has been a host of TV programs 
which has sponsors such as I t In addition, the 
Petitioner states that TV companies in the Ukraine do not publish the volume of sales for programs 
and consider that information confidential. 
Although the Petitioner provided additional information such as ratings information for thel
I I for various weeks, it does not overcome our prior conclusion. .___ ___, 
Because the new materials submitted on motion do not show proper cause for reopening, we will 
dismiss the motion to reopen. Moreover, the Petitioner has not established that we misapplied law or 
policy and that our prior decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at 
the time of the decision. Thus, we will also dismiss the motion to reconsider. 
7 See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distinguished, cited m 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.2 appendix, 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
4 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
5