dismissed EB-1A Case: Television Production

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-U-A-F-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 26, 2018 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a television producer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
education. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(I )(A), 8 U .S.C. 
ij 1153(b)(I)(A). This lirst preference classilication 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 Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had only shown that he met one of the ten initial evidentiat:y 
criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
On appeaL the Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that he meets five criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeaL 
L LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) 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 m 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 implementit:tg regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
J 
.
Maller ofS-U -A-F-
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is a major, 
internationally recognized award). Alternatively, he or she must provide documentation that meets 
at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items 
such as awards, memberships, and published material in certain media). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits detem1ination 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. 20 l 0) 
(discussing 
a two-part review where the documentation is tirst counted and then, if fulfi lling 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); R!jal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.O. Wash. 20 II). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to detem1ine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true." Mallen~f'Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a television producer. As he has not established that he has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, he must satisfy at least thr ee of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director f ound that the Petitioner had only met one of these criteria, 
judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets four other 
criteria which we will discuss below. Upon review, we conclude that the evidence in the record does 
not support a linding that the Petitioner meets the plain language requirements o f at least three 
criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documenrmion (f the alien 's member ship in association s in the field fo r which classifica tion 
is sought. which requir e outstanding achievements (~frheir members. a.\·judged by recognized 
national or internation al experts in their disciplines or.fieldr;. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(11)(3 )(ii). 
The Petitioner states that he meets this criterion as a member and judge for the 
The record contains a letter from 
who affirms that the Petitioner participated as a juror for the·20 I 0 and 20 II 
At issue here is whether being a j uror for this competition constitutes membership in 
an association that requires outstanding achievements of its members. states that " [t)he 
is 
a membership based organization 
comprised of leading media and entertainment figures from over 60 countries and 500 companies 
from all sectors o f television." He indicates t hat his task is "to select panels of unique and 
experienced television professionals from all over the world in order t o judge the programs and 
2 
.
Maller ofS-U-A-F-
perform ers entered into the comp etition." ·Here , indicate s 
that the qualiti cations for juror s include bein g "uniqu e and experienced te lev ision professio na ls," but 
he does not stipulate that they must have outstanding achieveme nts. 
The record also contains a page from the webs ite w hich ex plains the 
judging proce ss and how to bec ome a juror for the competition, stating that jurors "should have at 
least five years professional expe rience in telev ision, which may include producing , directing, 
writing , acq uisitions, acting , casting, distributi on and editin g." Acco rdin gly, it appear s that 
becomin g a juror is more a function of experie nce rathe r than an app licant 's outstanding 
achie vements. We find that the record doe s not demonstrate that outstandin g ach ieve ments are 
required to be se lecte d as a jur or for the compe tition. T here fore, the 
Petition er does· not meet this c riterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other mqjor 
media. relating to the alien's work in the.field .for which class(fication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title. date. and author l~j' the material, and any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5( h)(3)( iii). 
The record contain s two articles from the newspape r, which the Petitioner has 
demonstrat ed i s a major new spape r in Mexico . The tirst articl e is fro m 1996 about and 
opening the tirst m Mexico and contain s s everal qu otations from the 
Petitioner , who was the Producer of Mexico. He indicates that is o ffering 
a con test in which winne rs will receive a trip to amusem ent parks. The second article is f rom 
1997 about the premier of a in which the Petitioner, as the International 
Promotion s Direc tor of states that " the premiere will be done in with the 
attendan ce of some of the actors in the cast." However; neither of the se articl es is abo ut the 
Petitioner or con tains detail s abou t his work in the fie ld. 
The record also contain s several versions of a press release from 
annou ncing on its webs ite that the Petition er is a Client Soluti on Advisor for and that 
he is amon g three new research and development team memb ers to join It is unclear to 
what ex tent this press release has been distr ibuted. The record docs not contai n 
evidence dem onstrating 
that this press release is a major trade publication or other major media publication abo ut the Petitioner. 
Therefore, the Petitioner does not meet this criteri on. 
Evidence l?{the alien's participation, e ith~r individu ally or on a panel. as a judge l~{the work 
of others in the same or an allied field (?l spec[fication for which class(fica tion is sought. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
In his letter, 
Juror for the 20 I 0 and 20 I I 
Dire ctor, acknowledges that the Petitioner participated as a 
We conclude therefo re that 
the Petiti oner meets the requiremen ts of this criteri on. 
3 
.
Mauer ofS-U-A-F-
Evidenc e that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role .fhr organiza tions or 
establishmen ts that have a distinguished reputa tion. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5( h)(3)(v iii). 
A leading role should be apparent by its pos ition in the ove rall organi zational hierarch y and through the 
role 's matching duties. A critical role should be apparent from the Petitioner's imp act on the 
organization or the establishment ' s activities. The Petitioner's performanc e in this role should establish 
whether the role was critical for the organization or establishment as a whole. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claim s that he has perfom1ed a critical ~ole tor and 
In a letter from the CEO of he states that the Petition er i s the Senior Vice 
President of Programming and Origin al Production and that his work "direct ly impacts virtually all 
aspec ts of our televis ion conte nt from co ncept to quality and everythi ng i n bet ween" which is "vital to 
the success of our organiz ation as its content drives sales and attract s viewers, consumers and much 
more." Howev er, the webs ite indicates that the Petitioner. is a C lient Solution Adv isor f or 
and that he "is responsib le to r all com mercial presales and sales efforts for key acc ounts 
in Mexico, Central America and Chile.'' While the press release discusse d above indicated that the 
Petitioner was a C lient Solution Adviso r to r in 20 14, the Univ website con tinues to state that 
this is the Petitioner ' s position. It is unclear what position holds. In a ddition, 
letter does not state what the Petitioner does specificall y as a prod ucer that would amou nt to 
a critical role in an organiz ation with a distinguished reputation. 
In a letter from the General Coordinator for . s he attests to the 
Petitioner's role as a reporter for the entertain ment magaz ine since 1999, "creating unique pieces, 
many of which were exclusives, given his extraordinary knowl edge of the U.S. Hispanic and Latin 
America n Tele vision indu stry, not as a recognize.d journalist but also as an act ive Televis ion Producer 
of more than 30 years of experience." She further states that the Petition er' s participation as an adv isor 
on editorial board "has been very producti ve" in helping the compa ny "maintain 
audiences durin g 
a time that is very difficult for trad itional media." This demon strates that the 
Petitioner h as made meaningful contributions to but this does not establish that h e 
performed a critical role.within this orga nizat ion. 
The record also contains a letter from Director and Gene ral Prod ucer of 
, who indicates that her company co ntracted with Intemati onal, a company in which 
the Pet itioner served as the director and genera l producer . She states that "[the Petitioner] pcrfom1ed a 
very irnpot1ant role within our television content, reviewing concepts and quality whi ch is esse ntial to 
the s uccess of our produ ctions." This demonstrates that played an imp011ant role in 
help ing achieve success in its industry , but the record does not show the direct 
impact the Petitioner had in this role. Accor dingly , the Petitioner has not establishe d that he has 
perfo nned a leading or critica l role for these organizat ions. 
4 
.
Matter o.fS- U-A -F-
Evidence r?lcommercial successes in the pe1:{orming arts. as shown by box l?{fice receipls or 
record. cassel/e. compact disk. or video sales . 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x) 
The Petitioner asser1s that his work as a producer has resulted in sales totaling millions of dollars. The 
record contains a servrce contract between the Federal Government of and 
in which the Petitioner is identified as its manager. This serv ice con tract 
states that commits to provide 32 shows of for a total of $1 ,280,000. However, the 
record does not demonstrat e how this agreem ent with the government has resulted in commercial 
success. The regulation require s that commercial success be shown through "box office recei pts" or 
"video sales" and the Petitioner has not shown how a contract between a compa ny he manages and the 
government constitutes his commercial success. lt is unclear whether the contract was fulfilled and 
whether the Petitioner's company received the funding from' the government. 
In addition , the record contains a letter from for the 
who states that the Petitioner "has brought infrastructure investments for over 
I 00 million dollar , which will start in the y~ ars to come." The record does not provide spec itic details 
about these infrastructure investments or how they constitute commercial successes. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not established that he meetsthis criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because he has not submitted the require d initia l evidence of either a 
qualifying one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Thus , we do not need to fully address the totality of the materials in a 
final merit s determination. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we have 
reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding t~at it does not support a finding that the Petitione r 
has the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed . 
Cite as Maller (~j'S-U-A-F-, ID# 1142639 (AAO Apr. 26, 2018 ) 
5