dismissed EB-1A Case: Television Production

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 11823566 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN. 04, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a television producer, 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 although the 
Petitioner satisfied the initial evidence requirements for this classification, he did not demonstrate his 
sustained national or international acclaim and establish that he is among the small percentage at the 
very top of his field of endeavor. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner must prove eligibility for the requested 
immigration benefit by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-
376 (AAO 2010) . Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) 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 . 
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 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he 
or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a television director active in the Chinese teleyision industry The record reflects 
that he began work as a director in 2005 on the television serie~ I and that he ~----~ continued to do so during the pendency of the instant petition. 
A. Regulatory Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found that the Petitioner met three of the evidentiary 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) relating to published material, judging, and to authorship of 
scholarly articles. First, the Petitioner provides an interview published in The Beijing News in which 
he discusses his work as a producer, as well as circulation statistics for and information about The 
Beijing News and other comparable media demonstrating that it is a major media publication. 
Accordingly, he has established his eligibility for the published material criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Next, the record includes the Petitioner's invitation to judge the 20171 I 
.__ _ ___.I A wards and a certificate of appreciation confirming that he did so, showing that he satisfies 
the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Finally, the Petitioner submits evidence 
establishing that he meets the scholarly criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) through publication of 
articles in China Television and Contemporary TV and by providing documentation establishing that 
China Television and Contemporary TV are professional publications. Accordingly we agree with the 
Director that the Petitioner meets has satisfied the criteria found at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), (iv), 
and (vi). 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that he also satisfies the additional evidentiary criteria related to 
membership, leading or critical role in an organization with a distinguished reputation, and commercial 
2 
success found at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii),(viii), and (x). 1 As the Petitioner established that he meets 
at least three of the evidentiary criteria, we need not reach a finding on these additional criteria here. 
We will address the evidence submitted by the Petitioner regarding these criteria in the final merits 
determination below. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate whether the Petitioner 
has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has sustained national or international 
acclaim and is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits 
determination, we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to 
determine if his successes are sufficient to demonstrate that he has extraordinary ability in the field of 
endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2),(3); see also Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1119-20. In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown his eligibility. 
Regarding published material about the Petitioner, the record contains an interview with the Petitioner 
about his work as a producer for the television series I I published in The Beijing News 
and two articles published in People's Daily. It also includes objective evidence sufficient to show 
that The Beijing News and People's Daily qualify as major media. With respect to a fourth article in 
the record, published online at toutiao.com, upon review, we note that it appears to focus on fonding 
I I rather than on the Petitioner himself. The record also contains articles published in 
L~fe Week, Guangming Dail]' and Liaoshen Evening News about the Petitioner and his work as a 
producer fo~~-----~television series. 
Upon review, the Petitioner does not submit documentation showing that the seven articles, published 
over the course of a 15-year career in the television industry, are consistent with the sustained national 
or international acclaim necessary for this highly restrictive classification. The submitted media 
coverage shows that the Petitioner has received media recognition for producing multiple seasons of 
I Ian endeavor beginning in 2006. However, the Petitioner works in a high-profile 
industry in which most, if not all, projects receive media coverage to some extent. Without evidence 
that sets him apart from others in this field, the Petitioner has not established how the submission of 
these articles about him demonstrates that he is among "that small percentage who [has] risen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The commentary for the proposed 
regulations implementing section 203(b )(l)(A)(i) of the Act provide that the "intent of Congress that a 
very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring 
the petitioner to present more extensive documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 
56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). 
With regard to the Petitioner's scholarly articles, he provides abstracts of articles published in the 
China Television and Contemporary TV and documentation about the intended audiences for these 
publications sufficient to show that they are professional publications. The Petitioner farther submits 
evidence from the China Academic Journals database (CNKI) showing that his most frequently 
1 On appeal, the Petitioner does not contest the Director's finding that he had not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i). We therefore deem the issue waived and do not address it in our analysis. 
3 
downloaded China Television article has been retrieved 243 times. This evidence demonstrates that 
the Petitioner's work has received some recognition from others. However, the record does not include 
evidence sufficient to establish that CNKI' s core users are persons in his field of endeavor. Instead, 
the Petitioner provides CNKI documentation identifying the database's core users as "ranging from 
top universities, research institutes, government think-tanks" among others, but this document does 
not indicate that the persons downloading his articles are in the field of filmmaking or his work has 
greatly influenced or impacted others in the field. Without evidence showing the significance of this 
statistical data, the Petitioner has not established that the downloads of his scholarly articles reflect 
recognition in his field in a manner consistent one who is among "that small percentage who [has] 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
As it relates to the judging criterion, the Petitioner argues on appeal that his participation as a judge 
for thd I Awards is indicative of his sustained national or international acclaim as 
"only the top talent is invited to participate." As we note above, the Petitioner provided evidence 
showing that in 201 7 he served on the judging committee responsible for selecting thel I 
.__ _ ___.I Awards semi-final round nominees. A review of the record farther establishes that the 
Petitioner has achieved some national acclaim for his selection as a juror, as evidenced by a news 
article about thd , I Award semi-final jury in which he is identified by name, along 
with other notable actors and directors. 
However, the evidence discussed above does not address how this single instance of judging is 
indicative of national or international acclaim maintained over a long period of time. For example, 
the Petitioner has not offered evidence sufficient to show that he has continued to receive recognition 
for his participation as a judge in a manner reflecting sustained national acclaim. 2 He therefore has 
not shown that he has sustained national or international acclaim and that his achievements have been 
recognized in his field of expertise, as required. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). 
Regarding the Petitioner's membership in organizations requiring outstanding achievements of their 
members, the Petitioner provided evidence of membership in the China Television Artists' Association 
(CTAA), including his membership card, the bylaws, and information about the CTAA executive 
committee. However, the Petitioner did not show how membership in the CTAA indicates that he 
has risen to the very top of his field of endeavor. He does not provide evidence, for example, to show 
how his membership in CT AA sets him apart from others in the field of television production or 
direction such that his membership is consistent with being among "that small percentage who [has] 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Moreover, the Petitioner 
does not submit evidence demonstrating that he has received sustained national or international 
acclaim for his CTAA membership. 
With respect to the Petitioner's service in a leading or critical role, we first note that the record includes 
inconsistent documentation related to the companies for which the Petitioner worked and his role at 
2 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2 (stating that in 
determining whether the petitioner has enjoyed "sustained" national or international acclaim, the officer should consider 
that such acclaim must be maintained. and referencing Black's Law Dictionary's (11th ed. 2019), definition of sustain as 
"to support or maintain, especially over a long period of time ... To persist in making ( an effort) over a long period of 
time.") 
4 
these companies. For example, with his initial filing, the Petitioner provided a document titled 
"Certificate of Critical Role" fro vice president ofl I 
's information sheet from the China TV Production ~---~ 
Industry Associa~) website and his CTPIA member biography identifying him as president 
q I indicates tha~~----~lwas established in 2010 and that the Petitioner 
has been serving as s president since August 2010. 
In contrast, with his response to the Director's request for evidence RFE the Petitioner submitted a 
"Certificate of Critical Role" fro vice resident of ~~-----~--------~ 
~----------------------' ~-----~ s organization chart, the 
entity's CTPIA information sheet, and the Petitioner's CTPIA member introduction identifying him 
as a producer and president of1 I The record also includes documentation indicating 
thatl lwas founded in August 2010. In other words, the record contains two 
"Certificates of Critical Role" issued by two different companies, by two different individuals serving 
as the vice presidents, and identifying the Petitioner in different roles. The Petitioner must resolve 
these inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth 
lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). The Petitioner does not explain the 
relationship betwee~ I andl I, or otherwise offer documentation to resolve 
these inconsistencies in a manner allowing us to determine the roles he played for either entity. Even 
were we to view this evidence in the most favorable light and conclude that the Petitioner performed 
work for both of these companies simultaneously, he does not offer evidence sufficient to establish 
that his roles for them have garnered national or international acclaim in the field consistent with one 
who is among "that small percentage who [has] risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Regarding the Petitioner's role as a producer forl i,I I describes the Petitioner's 
duties as participating in "the investment, production, and distribution" of a number of television 
programs. On the other hand, as a producer fotj 11 I notes that the Petitioner 
led a team to develop a "precise calculation and estimation of the ro · ect cost and cycle" forl I I I and "successfully met the ~udget" for each of productions. Although 
the certificates prepared b~ I and~---~ provide etai e examp es of how the Petitioner's 
work benefits their respective companies, these documents do not discuss how the Petitioner has 
garnered national or international acclaim for this work. 
As it relates to the Petitioner's role as president ofl ll I describes the Petitioner's 
responsibilities as "developing and implementing the company's overall strategy and annual business 
plan" and "establishing and improving the company's management system and organizational 
structure." I I similarly describes the Petitioner's role asl l's president as 
being responsible for "taking charge of the company's daily operation and management" and 
"achieving company's management objectives and development goals." However, these certificates 
do not discuss whether these duties have garnered the Petitioner national or international acclaim 
consistent with being among that small percentage at the very top of the field. See section 203(b )(l)(A) 
of the Act. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that he drew significant attention from the 
field for duties performed in his roles as producer for and president of eithe~ I orD 
I ~ for these roles, or that the overall field considers him to be at the very top of the field of 
endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
5 
The record also includes a letter of recommendation from a film and television art 
director who indicates in his letter that he will work with the Petitioner o '--.,...-------,------=---' In his 
letter) I describes the Petitioner as a producer who considers "the creation cycle and production 
cost ... from the perspective of improving the artistic quality of the work" and notes that the Petitioner 
"has successfully produced and broadcasted"I ll I also states thatl I .__ ____ ..... I "received good ratings and reputation" and "accumulated a lot of fans, which has also 
been reco nized b the industry" and notes that the series has received man awards including the 
25th Award for Outstandin iven to and the 27th 
Upon review, the record corroborates these statements and shows that this award is granted to 
1 · · production teams. However, the record also shows that I I and~ 
ere among many television programs receiving these awards in their respective ye~ 
not differentiate between the Petitioner's work and that of the other television program 
awardees. In addition, the Petitioner does not provide evidence showing how the receipt of awards 
given to multiple shows sets him apart from that of other producers. Without evidence setting the 
Petitioner's work as a producer apart from that of others, this evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate 
that he is among "that small percentage who [has] risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
c= hmber stjtes that I lwas awarded the 25th I I Award for 
~ .... ____ _._ and the 27th I IA ward for Best I I The record lacks 
evidence demonstrating that these awards are conferred on television production teams, or otherwise 
showing how awards granted for I I and fo~ I reflect the Petitioner's sustained 
acclaim in the field of television production. 
FinallyJ !indicates thaJ I was awarded the 30th! I Award (2013-
2015) for Outstanding! I However, the record contains inconsistent evidence wij regardl 
to this award. With his initial petition, the Petitioner provided documentation showing that 
received this award; with his response to the Director's RFE he offered evidence demonstrating 
'----~--~ ..... was this award's recipient. The Petitioner must resolve this inconsistency in 
the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 
591-92. Without evidence resolving this inconsistency, we cannot determine if: asl !attests, 
the Petitioner received this award for his role as producer orl I reflecting his sustained 
national or international acclaim in his field. 
µa].ly, regarding the commercial success criterion, the Petitioner provides a letter from 
L__J financial director of.__ ______ __. certifying the commercial value ofL_ __ .r-----, 
series, a printout from The World of Chinese website rankin as one of the 
D television shows of 201 7 broadcast ratin s for an .__ ______ _. and a 
discussion of "click rates" for In his letter~--~ includes DVD sales figures 
reflecting the commercial success o .__ _____ _.and the television ratings demonstrate that this 
program has been widely viewed. Accordingly the record reflects tha~ ]has achieved 
some degree of commercial success. 
6 
However, the Petitioner does not offer evidence demonstrating that he has been recognized in the field 
for this success. For example, althougtj I attributes the high quality o~ Ito the 
Petitioner in his role as "president of our company and Executive Producer" of the series and asserts 
that the program has "achieved good social and economic benefits and commercial returns with high 
ratings, high reputation and high popularity," he does not explain how the Petitioner has been 
recognized in the field for these achievements or has otherwise garnered sustained national or 
international acclaim for them. See 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3). Further, the Petitioner does not offer 
evidence showing how this television program's commercial success sets him apart from that of the 
success of other programs, and therefore other producers in his field of endeavor. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility for the classification sought. 
Finally, we acknowledge the Petitioner's argument on appeal that the Director erred in concluding that 
he was not coming to work in his area of extraordinary ability. However, for the reasons discussed 
above, the Petitioner has not established his extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the 
Act. As such we need not determine whether he is coming to "continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability" under section 203(b)(l)(a)(ii) of the Act. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7