dismissed EB-1A Case: Television Producer

PUBLIC COPY 
htifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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. 4 1 153(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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant 
visa petition. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter 
is now before the AAO on a motion to reopen. The motion will be granted, the previous decision of the 
AAO will be affirmed and the petition will be denied. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the arts, pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A). 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. 
On appeal, counsel submitted a brief and additional evidence. The AAO concluded that the petitioner 
submitted evidence sufficient to meet two of the regulatory criteria, of which an alien must meet at least 
three, but emphasized that even that evidence was too old to be indicative of sustained acclaim when 
the petition was filed. 
On motion, counsel continues to assert that the petitioner has a one-time achievement and meets the 
awards criterion. The petitioner submits no new evidence. The petitioner has not overcome the AAO's 
concerns. 
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 aclevements 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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) 
have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seeking 
immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (November 29, 
1991). 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 have risen to the very top of the field of 
Page 3 
endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.50(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. 5 204.5(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. 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a television 
producer. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained 
national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
international recognized award). 
In our appellate decision, we stated: 
Throughout the proceedings, counsel has asserted that the Asian Television Awards are 
major internationally recognized awards. The petitioner submitted a certificate 
confirming that "Love for China All Over the World" won the 1997 Asian Television 
Award for "Best Light Entertainment or Variety Program." In a letter dated July 1, 
2003, a judge for the awards, confirms that the petitioner "was one of the 
Executive Producers of the program." further explains that the award 
program is sponsored by Bloomberg Television, Leitch, Kodak, Sony and Pearson 
Television and judges over 1,200 television programs from approximately 24 
countries throughout Asia. In response to the director's request for additional 
evidence and again on appeal, the petitioner submits evidence relating to the prestige 
of these awards. The statute requires extensive evidence for this classification. In 
order to accept evidence of a single "one-time achievement" as evidence of the 
petitioner's sustained national or international acclaim, the award must not only be a 
major internationally recognized prize, but also unequivocally associated with the 
alien. Winners of Academy Awards, Nobel Prizes and Olympic medals receive such 
recognition because their names are announced. The statutory requirement of 
"extensive documentation" is presumed for such awardees because the receipt of such 
awards garners such significant recognition for the alien in the form of, for example, 
press coverage. 
The petitioner was "one of7 an unknown number of executive producers of "Love for 
China All Over the World." The record contains no evidence that the petitioner 
personally received the show's Asian Television Award. Without such evidence, we 
cannot accept this award as a one-time achievement equivalent to the type of 
"extensive documentation" of achievements mandated by the statute. 
On motion, counsel asserts that the producer is not named when the best picture is awarded at the 
Academy Awards and notes that two producers shared the best picture award for "Crash." The 
petitioner submits no evidence that the Academy Award statues for Best Picture do not list the names 
of the producers who receive the award.' The programs for the Asian Television Awards submitted 
reveal that the nominees are listed with their production company, not the producer. As the producers 
for these shows are not listed with the nominees, it would appear that the awards are issued to the 
production company as a whole, not the individual producers. Moreover, while we do recognize team 
awards, the team members must still be the named recipients of the awards. As the petitioner is not a 
named recipient, the number of executive producers is relevant. The petitioner provides no new 
evidence regarding the number of executive producers. 
Regardless, we construe the one-time achievement very strictly as it is an alternative to submitting 
extensive documentation sufficient to meet three criteria. While not stated in our previous decision, we 
must emphasize that a one-time achievement is defined as a "major international recognized award." 
(Emphasis added.) Lesser internationally recognized awards fall under the regulatory criterion at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i). Thus, not every award that is international qualifies as a one-time 
achievement. The congressional example of a one-time achievement is a Nobel prize: which is global 
rather than regional. Thus, we interpret "major" to be global, such as the Nobel Prize and the Olympic 
medals. While we acknowledge that the Asian Television Awards include 24 countries, they are not 
global. 
For all of the above reasons, we uphold our previous finding that the petitioner does not have a one- 
time achievement as contemplated by Congress. 
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. In our previous decision, we held that the petitioner submitted evidence 
ordinarily sufficient to meet two criteria but emphasized that the evidence relating to these criterion 
dates back years before the petition was filed. Thus, we concluded that this evidence was not indicative 
of sustained acclaim as of the date of filing. 
On motion, counsel's only challenge to our discussion of the ten regulatory criteria is our finding that 
the petitioner did not meet the lesser national or international awards criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(i). Counsel asserts that even if the petitioner's 1997 Asian Television Award is 
insufficient to qualify as a one-time achievement, it is sufficient to meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(h)(3)(i). Counsel does not explain how a single award, dating back to 1997, is evidence of the 
beneficiary's sustained acclaim in 2004, when the petition was filed. We note that the petitioner 
initially entered the United States in 2002 as an MBA student at the University of California, Los 
Angeles and his Fox TV identification contained in the record lists his position as "intern," which is 
inconsistent with a film producer enjoying sustained acclaim. 
1 
A review of the Best Motion Picture category on the Academy's website, www.Oscars.org, reveals that the 
nominees are listed followed by the production company and the names of the individual producers. 
H.R. Rep. No. 101 -723,59 (September 19, 1990). 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a film 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 his field. The evidence indicates that the petitioner 
shows talent and past success as a film 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 these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 136 1. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the previous decision of 
the AAO will be affirmed, and the petition will be denied. 
ORDER: 
 The AAO's decision of February 10,2006 is affirmed. The petition is denied.