dismissed EB-1A Case: Television Production

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
IN RE: 
---- 
EAC 06 037 50950 
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. 5 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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. fj 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
u 
,&hn F. Grissom, Acting Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
Service Center and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 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. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability. The director determined that 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 argues that the director's decision failed to address all of the petitioner's evidence, 
including her more recent work. 
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 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. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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, 
60898-99 (Nov. 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 endeavor. 
 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(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). If the ten 
criteria do not readily apply to the alien's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4). The relevant criteria will be addressed 
below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that she has sustained national 
or international acclaim at the very top level. 
Page 3 
This petition, filed on November 14, 2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a television producer. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) indicates that 
an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). 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. A petitioner, 
however, cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by submitting evidence that simply 
relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets 
a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or 
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not 
be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "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. 4 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the 
following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted an October 17, 2005 letter from , journalist and television host 
of Nine Network Australia's This is Your Life, stating: 
[The petitioner] and I met while she was a Communications student attending the University 
of Western Sydney. She contacted me with interests of doing an internship with my then 
employer Nine Network Australia. 
At the time contacted me I was Senior News Anchor for the program A Current Affair, 
Australia's version of 60 Minutes in the United States. . . . [The petitioner] was quickly hired 
on as my Senior Producer while I hosted the A Current Affair program. . . . As my Senior 
Producer, [the petitioner] worked on many internationally exclusive stories. She was the 
only Senior Producer from the show sent to New York to cover September 11 for A Current 
Affair. 
[The petitioner's] extraordinary skills as a Producer brought to us the exclusive story of 
a terminally ill Australian woman who carried out her promise to take her own 
life. 
I 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
Page 4 
Another exclusive story that A Current Affair obtained due to [the petitioner's] extraordinary 
abilities as a Producer was with reclusive S.A.S. service of the Australian Army. . . . 
Due to the brilliantly produced stories outlined above, in 2001 A Current Affair won a Logie 
Award (Australia's version of an Emmy Award) for "Most Outstanding Public Affairs 
Program." I was chosen and honored to accept on behalf of the show. In my acceptance 
speech I thanked [the petitioner] for being the most proficient, extremely exceptional Senior 
Producer I have ever had the experience of working with. 
According to 
 letter, the award was presented to his show (which had multiple 
producers) rather than to the petitioner. The plain language of this regulatory criterion, however, 
requires "documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards." We cannot ignore 
 statement that the award was accepted by him 
rather than the petitioner. Further, there is no supporting evidence from the organizers of the 2001 
Logie Awards indicating that A Current Affair received a Logie Award in 2001 or that the award 
focused primarily on the petitioner's work. Simply going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter 
of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
On February 1,2007, the director requested further evidence regarding the aforementioned the Logie 
Award, including a copy of the award and information demonstrating its scope and significance. In 
response, counsel states: 
Unfortunately, like the Emmy award, the Logie Award is actually a small statuette and as 
such a "copy" of it is not available. The original is in Australia and not available for 
photography; however, we present the official list of Logie award winners from 1990 which 
confirms that the news program A Current Affair . . . won the Loge for most popular current 
affairs program. 
We note that the "official list of Logie award winners" submitted by the petitioner in response to the 
director's request for evidence was not from the competition organizers. Rather, the petitioner 
submitted a printout from Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, entitled "Logie Awards of 1990." 
With regard to information from Wikipedia, there are no assurances about the reliability of the 
content from this open, user-edited internet site.2 See Lamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, No. 07- 
Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GURANTEE OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative 
encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource 
of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. 
Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required 
Page 5 
2276 (gth Cir. August 29, 2008). As such, we will not assign weight to information for which 
Wikipedia is the only cited source. Nevertheless, the Wikipedia list submitted by the petitioner is for 
the "Logie Awards of 1990" rather than for the Logie awards of 2001, the year indicated in 
We also note counsel's statement that primary evidence of the Loge Award "is not available." A 
petition must be filed with any initial evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(l). 
The nonexistence or other unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 
8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2)(i). In this instance, the petitioner has not overcome the absence of primary 
and secondary evidence demonstrating that the television programming she produced received a 
Logie Award or that the award was primarily attributable to her work. As there is no evidence 
showing that the petitioner herself is the recipient of nationally or internationally recognized award 
in her field, we cannot conclude that she meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classzJication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines orjelds. 
Whilst at WTN [I], [the petitioner's] reputation and exceptional 
production skills quickly gained the respect of the entire news department. On numerous 
occasions, I received feedback from other WTN staff members praising her exceptional 
abilities as a producer, writer and journalist. 
who worked with the petitioner in the Entertainment Department of APTN, states: 
"Currently, hundreds of celebrity interviews and entertainment news packages that produced 
are being used and broadcasted all over the world." letter was accompanied by "a 
list of U.S. and international media outlets that are currently utilizing [the petitioner's] celebrity 
interviews and coverage." 
We cannot conclude that employment as a producer in a news department is comparable to 
"membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding 
achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts." The 
to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information. . . . Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of 
the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or 
altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. 
See http:ilen.wikipedia.orgiwiluiWikivedia:Gene-a disclaimer, accessed on February 9, 2009, copy incorporated into 
the record of proceeding. 
petitioner has not established that earning the respect of her immediate colleagues and having her 
work produced and broadcasted is tantamount to outstanding achievements or consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the television industry. Upon review, 
we find the director properly considered the evidence submitted, thoroughly addressed counsel's 
arguments and appropriately addressed the evidence and arguments in his decision. Accordingly, we 
concur with the director's finding that the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signiJicance in the field. 
We acknowledge the petitioner's submission of several recommendation letters praising her talent as 
a producer and discussing her activities in the field. Talent and employment in one's field, however, 
are not necessarily indicative of original artistic contributions of major significance. The record 
lacks evidence showing that the petitioner has made original contributions that have significantly 
influenced or impacted her field. 
For the last three years, I have been [the petitioner's] Supervising Producer at 60 Minutes, a 
leading weekly investigative news program broadcasted by the Nine Network, Australia's 
highest-rating television network. [The petitioner] is one of our Producers for 60 Minutes 
and is responsible for producing the show's U.S. news coverage. 
[The petitioner] has been successfully producing top-rated shows for the Nine Network for 
more than a decade now. She is currently producing outstanding programs of international 
importance for 60 Minutes, but originally began her promising career with A Current Affair, 
our sister nightly current affairs program. 
I am responsible for assigning the program's top U.S. news coverage to [the petitioner]. I, 
and in turn 60 Minutes, depend on her to produce informative, compelling newscasts with 
true viewer benefit. [The petitioner] is responsible for the story's production once it is 
assigned to her. [The petitioner's] job is to take tie assignment and make it into quality 
television, in keeping with the high standard set by 60 Minutes. As our Producer, [the 
petitioner] takes responsibility for everything from coordinating the crew and equipment, 
researching and investigating story detail, reviewing and editing all news scripts to 
scheduling all interviews and working with on-air Reporters in the field. This truly requires 
the skills of an extraordinary Producer who can meet uncompromising deadlines and produce 
outstanding international news coverage from across the world. 
Page 7 
I feel that [the petitioner's] assignment to cover the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina provides 
the clearest example of her abilities. We needed [the petitioner] to travel down to Louisiana 
and Mississippi and report every detail of what was happening down in those areas. . . . [The 
petitioner's] job was to develop and produce the story showing the people and communities 
affected by the chaotic destruction of the hurricane. We counted on her skills and knowledge 
to bring real-time stories and reports to the Australian viewers. 
While the petitioner's work is admired by the supervising producer of her unit at 60 Minutes, there is 
no evidence showing that her development and production of news stories is tantamount to original 
contributions of major significance in her field. 
I had the great pleasure of a face-to-face meeting with [the petitioner]. I experienced for 
myself the force of her personality, talking through her life and times, using her resume as a 
jumping off point . . . . 
As a producer and director of American prime-time television for the past twenty years, it is 
my opinion that [the petitioner] is a producer of extraordinary ability. Her accomplishments 
are remarkable, her energy boundless, and the ceiling of her success seems limitless. 
letter does not indicate that he was aware of the petitioner's contributions prior to 
meeting her and reviewing her resume. Nor does his letter specifically identify the petitioner's 
original contributions as a television producer. 
I first met [the petitioner] in 1997 while working together at ABC's Worldwide Television 
, News, now part of Associated Press Television News . . . . 
Out of the many assignments and I worked on together the one that best shows her 
outstanding skills and talents as a Producer is the coverage of . . . Because 
of [the petitioner's1 amazing; skills as a Producer, not only did we get some of the most 
- 
inciedibie interviews but our-crew was the only media outle; allowed to work out of the = 
m;. . . . [The petitioner] is clearly a Producer of extraordinary 
abilities and talent. She is without a doubt the best in her field and the best that I've had the 
pleasure of working with. 
Unit, states that she has known the 
petitioner since working with her in 1999. Ms. 
 further states: 
[The petitioner's] role as Producer in our 1999 hurricane coverage was extremely critical to 
our news broadcasts that season. ABC News and our team relied heavily on her outstanding 
skills, talent and tireless efforts to take control and responsibility of all details of bringing 
live coverage to our continuous on-air broadcasts. Beyond being a swift decision-maker, she 
is also an excellent and skilled writer and reporter. 
The preceding letters describe the petitioner as a talented producer, but there is no evidence 
establishing that the specific work attributable to her is tantamount to original contributions of major 
significance in the field. According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's 
contributions must be not only original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase 
"major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. While the petitioner has 
earned the admiration of her superiors and colleagues, there is nothing to demonstrate that her work 
has had major significance in the field. For example, the record does not indicate the extent of the 
petitioner's influence on other television producers nationally or internationally, nor does it show 
that the field has somehow changed as a result of her work. 
In this case, the recommendation letters submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this 
regulatory criterion. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as 
expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). 
However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters of support from the petitioner's 
personal contacts is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of 
those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. Thus, the content of the 
writers' statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important 
considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of 
an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of original 
contributions of major significance that one would expect of television producer who has sustained 
national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. Without extensive documentation 
showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually influential, highly acclaimed throughout her 
field, or has otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major significance, we cannot 
conclude that she meets this criterion. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, counsel states: 
You have asked for additional obiective evidence of [the ~etitioner'sl ori~inal contributions. 
2 - 
We submit as objective evidenceaa copy of 
 of the hit 
' which [the petitioner] produced m. We also submit the 
 tra~ er or t e 
petitioner's] new MTV series '' Further, we submit promos for 
[the petitioner's] upcoming HBO series 'I The fact that these top 
networks are selecting [the petitioner] to produce new programming for them is a dramatic 
Page 9 
illustration with objective evidence that she is in fact making original contributions to her 
field. . . . 
The petitioner's response included copies of DVD recordings for the aforementioned television 
programs. The petitioner also submitted an April 10, 2007 letter from Y- 
stating that the petitioner worked with her on the ABC 
television series 
 in the summer of 2006. There is no evidence showing that the 
preceding work produced by the petitioner had been released or broadcast as of the petition's 
November 14, 2005 filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 
8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Comrnr. 1971). 
Subsequent developments in the petitioner's career cannot retroactively establish that she was eligible 
as of the petition's filing date. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the petitioner's work for the 
preceding series in this proceeding. Nevertheless, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's 
work for these series was tantamount to original contributions of major significance in her field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the$eld, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
Counsel argues that circulation of the petitioner's work in major media meets this regulatory 
criterion. The plain language of this criterion requires the petitioner's "authorship of scholarly 
articles." The television programming produced by the petitioner does not meet this requirement. 
Further, because the petitioner works as a television producer, the fact that she has produced material 
for broadcast by major media outlets is not indicative of sustained national or international acclaim 
at the very top of her field. Such work is inherent to the petitioner's occupation and is the result of 
the collaboration of multiple contributors. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, counsel cites the petitioner's recent work for 
"entertainment media sources in the U.S., namely HBO, MTV and ABC." As discussed, the 
broadcast and release dates for the series One Ocean View (ABC), Flight ofthe Conchords (HBO), 
and Viva La Bum! and Adventures in Hollywood (MTV) on which the petitioner worked post-date 
the filing of the petition. A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 
8 C.F.R. $9 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will 
not consider the petitioner's work for the preceding series in this proceeding. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner submitted letters of support reflecting that she has worked as a producer fo 
Entertainment Department, an 
News. While these organizations may have a distinguished reputation, there is no evidence showing 
Page 10 
that the petitioner's role for them was leading or critical. At issue for this criterion is the position the 
petitioner was selected to fill for these media outlets. In other words, the position must be of such 
significance that the alien's selection to fill the position, in and of itself, is indicative of or consistent 
with national or international acclaim. In this case, there is no evidence demonstrating how the 
petitioner's role differentiated her fiom the multiple producers worlung for these organizations, let alone 
their executive staff. The documentation submitted by the petitioner shows that she performed 
admirably on the projects assigned to her, but it does not establish that she was responsible for the 
preceding organizations success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or 
critical role" and indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted evidence showing that she 
producer and a co-director for these two series occurred subsequent to the petition's filing date. A 
petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the petitioner's 
work for the preceding series in this proceeding. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box ofice 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
The October 17, 2005 letter fiom 
 states that "in 2001 A Current Afair won a Logie 
Award . . . for 'Most Outstanding Public Affairs Program."' According to information submitted by 
the petitioner from htt~://tvweek.ninemsn.com.au, TV Week Logie Awards are chosen by popular 
vote. As discussed, the record does not include primary evidence from the organizers of the 2001 
Logie Awards indicating that A Current Affair received a Logie Award in 2001 or that the award 
focused primarily on the petitioner's work. There is no evidence showing that the commercial 
success of this program was mostly attributable to the petitioner's work or that the program's 
audience significantly increased after she was hired as a producer. 
The October 27, 2005 letter from 
 was accompanied by "a list of U.S. and 
international media outlets that are currently utilizing [the petitioner's] celebrity interviews and 
coverage." The record, however, does not include actual sales figures or other quantifiable evidence 
showing that the petitioner's work achieved commercial success in manner consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim at the very top of her field. This regulatory criterion calls for 
evidence of commercial successes in the form of "sales" or "receipts;" simply submitting evidence 
indicating that the petitioner produced or contributed to program segments that were utilized by various 
broadcasters cannot meet the plain language of this criterion. 
Page 11 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted DVD recordings for Flight 
of the Conchords and Adventures in Hollywood. Counsel states: "Although [the petitioner's] latest 
shows . . . are very new, they are commercially successful in that they are premiering on two of the 
most outstanding television networks today, HBO and MTV." As discussed, the broadcast premier 
dates for these two shows post-date the filing of the petition. A petitioner, however, must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $8 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 
49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider this evidence in this proceeding. 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate her receipt of a major, internationally recognized 
award, or that she meets at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). 
Throughout this proceeding, counsel has argued that some of the petitioner's documentation should 
be considered as comparable evidence of the petitioner's extraordinary ability pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(4). For example, counsel argues that the petitioner's employment with WTN is 
comparable evidence for the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(ii) and that circulation of her work in 
major media is comparable evidence for the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi).~ The regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of "comparable evidence" only if the ten criteria 
"do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." The regulatory language precludes the 
consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as there is no indication that eligibility for visa 
preference in the petitioner's occupation cannot be established by the ten criteria specified by the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Where an alien is simply unable to meet three of the regulatory 
criteria, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for the 
submission of comparable evidence. Nevertheless, there is no evidence showing that the 
documentation the petitioner requests evaluation of as comparable evidence constitutes 
achievements and recognition consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very 
top of her field. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an extent 
that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her field at a national or international 
level. 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. 8 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
"his evidence has already been addressed earlier in this decision and in the decision of the director.