dismissed EB-1A Case: Television Producer

U.S. Department of Bameland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 03 171 51877 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: ET 2 8 2005 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. $ 1153@)(1)(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. 
obert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 171 51877 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Oflice 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 qualifL for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. Specifically, while not all of the 
director's discussions reach a conclusion, t@ director appears to have concluded that the petitioner does not 
meet any of the regulatory criteria. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and additional evidence. While we concur with some of counsel's assertions, 
we find that the petitioner has not established that he meets more than two of the regulatory criteria. An alien 
must meet three to establish eligibility. As such, we must dismiss the appeal. 
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 ~bilit$. -- 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 have 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. 
§ 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 classifjr 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). Barring 
the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied 
WAC 03 171 51877 
Page 3 
for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt ojlesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or awards for 
excellence in thejeld of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the China TV Drama Production Center received Apsaras and Junma 
awards for several dramatic series. The petitioner also submitted a certificate from China Central Television 
(CCTV) confirming that he was the playwright and producer for the award-winning dramatic series. In response 
to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted materials fiom the CCTV affirming 
that the Apsaras Awards competition is sponsored by the Ministry of Radio Film and Television of China and 
that the award "is also the most authoritative and fairest classic award." The petitioner submitted the results for 
some of the previous years, reflecting that the Apsaras does recognize outstanding playwrights, but not 
producers. The petitioner also submitted materials about the Junma Awards, authorized by the State Central 
Propaganda Bureau. The award lists reflect that the awards are presented to the producing union. 
The director concluded that the awards could not serve to meet this criterion because the petitioner did not 
receive them himself. On appeal, counsel asserts that China is a "collective system" where any work performed 
"is credited to the workplace or organization, paplarly with work accomplished with government funds." 
Counsel notes that the petitioner has provided evidence affirming his role as producer and playwright and 
concludes that the petitioner "has presented convincing evidence that these awards were presented to CCTV 
China Drama Production Center for [the petitioner's] outstanding contributions." 
Contrary to counsel's appellate assertion, the Apsaras Awards do recognize individual achievement. 
Specifically, there are awards for outstanding playwright and outstanding director, among others. The petitioner 
has not submitted any evidence that he received any awards as an outstanding playwright. Moreover, the 
petitioner has not documented the nature of the role of producer for a state-run and state-financed production. 
Thus, we concur with the director that the ,awards submitted do not meet the plain language requirements of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. !j 204.5(h)(3)(i), which requires documentation of the alien's receipt of awards or prizes. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classiJcation is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements oftheir members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his membership in the China TV Artists Association and the Chinese 
Writers Association. The director did not address this criterion in his request for additional evidence. Thus, the 
petitioner's response to that request also1 did not address this criterion. In his final decision, the director 
concluded that the petitioner had not established that the above associations require outstanding achievements of 
their members. On appeal, the petitioner submits the membership requirements for the China TV Artists 
Association and the Bylaws of the Chinese Writers Association. 
To apply for membership in the China TV Artists Association, an applicant must: 
I The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
WAC 03 171 51877 
Page 4 
a) Initiatively joint [sic] the practice of flourishing socialist TV arts; 
b) [Be] TV arts workers who have been engaged in the administration of creation, production, 
education, research, criticism, translation, broadcast and organization in different fields of 
TV arts business; has senior high professional technical rank and deputy high professional 
technical rank; or has public recognized [sic] high level TV arts production that won 
national or provincial awards; and 
c) Actively support this association, enthusiastically promote TV arts business, has certain 
achievements in TV arts, has certain influence. 
An application must be supported by recommendations from two or more members and is evaluated by a "group 
of chairmen authorized department." The minimum membership requirements appear to require no more than a 
specific technical rank in the field in addition to participating in the field and supporting the goals of the 
association. While holding a senior position in the field may represent one's experience and skill, we do not 
find it to be an outstanding achievement. Moreover, the other materials about the association submitted on 
appeal reflect that it is a "professional organization." These materials further provide: 
[The] China TV Artists Association absorbs TV artists, theorists, critics, and professionals and 
scholars who have achievements in the TV arts education and editing business in the nation to 
be members. It currently has about 5000 members. All provincial, autonomous regions and 
municipal cities' TV Artists Associations are group members of [the] China TV Artists 
Association. All the group members will absorb their individual members locally. 
A professional organization is not typically competitive, requiring little more than an ability to succeed in the 
field. Undefined "achievements" are not necessarily outstanding achievements. Regarding the selection of 
members, the record does not establish that the "group of chairmen authorized department" consists of 
recognized national or international experts in their discipline. Thus, the petitioner's membership in the China 
TV Artists Association cannot serve to meet this criterion. 
The Bylaws of the China Writers Association also indicate that it is a "professional organization." Regarding 
membership: 
Those who agree to the association rules as regulations and have published considerably [sic] 
literacy [sic] work, theoretical research, and translations or have obtained outstanding 
achievements in literacy editing, education and organization can apply for membership. They 
must apply individually, be recommended by [a] writers association of respective provinces, 
autonomous region[s] and municipal cities directly under the central government and referred 
by two members of the association upon to [sic] approval by the office of the general 
secretaries; they become the members of this association. 
We note that the requirements include an "or" before outstanding achievements in editing, education and 
organization. Thus, merely publishing one's work is sufficient. It is inherent to making a living in the field of 
writing to publish one's work. As such, it is not an outstanding achievement. Thus, the petitioner's membership 
in the China Writers Association also fails to satisfy this criterion. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not overcome the director's finding that the petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility under this criterion. 
WAC 03 171 51877 
Page 5 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien's work in the field for which classzjkation is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner submitted an interview with him published in an unidentified and undated newspaper; an 
untranslated 1994 article in Art Weekly; an article about the production of a television drama produced by the 
petitioner that does not mention him by name in an unidentified and undated newspaper; an article about the 
petitioner in the September 18, 1994 issue of Drama Movie and TV Journal; an article about the petitioner's 
adaptation of a novel in the March 26,2001 issue of the Beijing Evening News and articles from 2003 about a 
television series, produced by the petitioner and being filmed in the United States appearing in three Chinese- 
American publications: The China Press, the International Daily News and the Chinese Daily News. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted evidence of the circulation 
of the Beijing Evening News and the Chinese-American publications. The director concluded: "While the 
articles were minimal, the record contains abundant information on the newspapers widespread circulation." It 
is unclear from this statement whether the director found that the petitioner meets this criterion or not. We find 
that he does not. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the Beijing Evening News is distributed domestically and internationally, 
with a circulation of approximately 800,000. We do not find this circulation to be significant nationally, given 
China's overall population. We need not decide whether the Chinese-American newspapers, published in a 
language that the majority of the population in the United States cannot comprehend, are major media. The 
articles are about the filming of "Honor," and mention the petitioner only in passing, if at all. As such, the 
articles in the Chinese-American press cannot be said to be "about" the petitioner. The petitioner did not submit 
the circulation data for Drama Movie and TV Journal. Thus, the petitioner has not established that the 
publication constitutes major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien S participation, either individually or on apanel, as a judge of the work of others in the 
same or an alliedJie1d of specification for which classification is sought. 
The petitioner has never claimed to meet this criterion, including on appeal, and the director did not address it. 
Nevertheless, we acknowledge thatice Director of the China TV Drama Production Center of 
CCTV. asserts that the ~etitioner was amointed a "member of the Judee Committee for the hihest level of TV u " 
professionals in china." +ice Dean of the Television College at Beijing Broadcast University, 
provides a similar statement.  either nor however, explains exactly what the petitioner 
judged. Without additional information, we cannot conclude that the petitioner has established that he meets 
this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major signzjicance in the field. 
While the director did not include a heading relating to this criterion, the director appears to have discussed it 
under the leading or critical role criterion pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 8 204,5(h)(3)(viii) discussed below. The director, 
WAC 03 171 51877 
Page 6 
however, did not reach a conclusion. Rather, the director merely stated that the petitioner must establish that his 
contributions were of substantially greater significance than those of others in the field and that successful 
fulfillment of one's basic job duties are not contributions of major significance. While we agree with these 
premises, the director failed to apply them to the facts and reach a conclusion. 
Guan Ling, Vice Dean of the Television College of Beijing Broadcast University, asserts that that the 
petitioner's 1990 television drama series, "Peking Man in New York" broke a viewership record, with over 300 
million viewers. In 1994, the petitioner produced the first documentary TV drama in Chinese W history. Mr. 
Ling lists other series produced by the petitioner that "broke the historical record of the Chinese drama 
production." The 2001 newspaper article in the Beijing Evening News asserts that the petitioner's series 
"Feeling Power in the World" was the most popular Chinese television drama at the time. While we cannot 
credit the petitioner with the awards received by his employer for the reasons discussed above, we acknowledge 
that he has produced several award-winning dramas. Considering the record as a whole, we find that the 
petitioner has demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien S work in theJield at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner initially submitted photographs of the petitioner at work. The petitioner did not submit any 
evidence that these photographs were part of an artistic exhibition or showcase of his work. While the 
petitioner's drama series have appeared on television, it is inherent for television shows to be broadcasted. 
There is no evidence in the record that the series were broadcast as part of an artistic exhibition or showcase. As 
such, the petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that 
have a distinguished reputation. 
While the petitioner initially claimed to meet this criterion, the director's discussion under this heading relates to 
the contributions criterion pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), discussed above. For the reasons discussed 
below, we find that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Counsel asserted initially that the petitioner was "the Director and General Producer of [the] China TV Drama 
Production Center at China Central TV." The petitioner submitted a certificate from the China TV Drama 
Production Center confirming that since 1997, the petitioner has been "a Vice Director of the Art and Literature 
Department, General Producer of our Center." The certificate does not further elaborate on the organization of 
the center. One of the petitioner's references, Mr. Wang also holds the title of Vice Director. 
While the evidence regarding the petitioner's role for the center as a whole is not persuasive without additional 
evidence of the center's organization, we acknowledge that the petitioner has produced several award-winning 
dramatic series. As these series have enjoyed a distinguished reputation and we accept that the producer is a 
leading or critical role, we find that the petitioner has established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signijkantly high remuneration for services, 
in relation to others in theJield. 
The petitioner did not initially claim to meet this criterion. In response to the director's request for evidence 
regarding the petitioner's commercial success, the petitioner submitted evidence of his income and evidence of 
WAC 03 171 51877 
Page 7 
the average income for Beijing. The director noted that the petitioner did not submit any evidence of the high- 
end compensation for television producers in China. On appeal, counsel asserts that no government or public 
information with this data is available for China. Assuming this fact to be true, counsel does not explain why 
secondary evidence or affidavits from Chinese experts in the field cannot be submitted. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(2). Without any evidence that would allow us to compare the petitioner's remuneration with the top 
members of his field in China, we cannot conclude that the petitioner has established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box ofJice receipts or record, cassette, 
compact disk, or video sales. 
While the petitioner submitted evidence of his wages to meet this criterion, wages are more properly considered 
above and we have done so. On appeal, counsel references the ranking of the petitioner's recent television 
drama. This drama was in production at the time of filing. Its ranking on November 23,2003, six months after 
the petition was filed, is not evidence of the petitioner's eligibility as of the date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 
103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg. Comm. 197 1). Moreover, as viewers do not pay 
for television, counsel has not provided us with a means of comparing television rankings with the type of 
evidence specified by the regulation, such as box office receipts. 
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 the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a television 
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 as a television 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. 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.