dismissed EB-1A Case: Video Production

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-J-R-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 19. 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-140.1MMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner. a video producer and director. seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability in the arts. See Immigration and Nationality J\ct (the Act) section 203(b)(1)(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 Texas Service Center denied the Form I-140. Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient initial evidence. Specitically. he did 
not establish that he received a major. internationally recognized award or satisfied any of the ten 
regulatory criteria. of which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal. the Petitioner submits a brief and supporting documentation. most of which he had 
presented to the Director, and states that he qualities for the classification because he has offered 
evidence of a one-time achievement. 
Upon de noro revievv. we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)( 1 )(/\)of the Act describes qualified immigrants for this classification as follows: 
(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 111 the area of 
extraordinary ability. and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
Matter ofC-.1-R-
The term "extraordinary ability"' refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top ofthe 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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
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 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 tield of endeavor. See Kaiarian v. U\'C/,\'. 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). 1 
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 determine whether the fact to he proven is probably true:· Matter of 
Chawathe. 25 I&N Dec. 369. 376 (AAO 201 0). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner indicates that he intends to work as a video producer and director in the United States. 
He states that he has edited and served as post-production supervisor for television advertisements 
and music videos. On appeaL he maintains that he won a major. internationally recognized award 
under 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3 ). We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record. and determined 
that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner has a one-time achievement or has presented 
documents satisfying at least three of the ten criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3 )(i)-(x). 
A. One-Time Achievement 
Given Congress· intent to restrict this category to ""that small percentage of individuals who have 
risen to the very top of their field of endeavor:· the regulation permitting eligibility based on a one­
time achievement must he interpreted very narrowly. with only a small handful of awards qualifying 
as major. internationally recognized awards. See H.R. Rep. I 01-723. 59 (Sept. 19. 1990). reprinted 
in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710. 1990 WL 200418 at *6739. The House Report specifically cited to the 
Nobel Prize as an example of a one-time achievement: other examples which enjoy major. 
international recognition may include the Pulitzer Prize. the Academy Award. and an Olympic 
medal. The regulation is consistent with this legislative history. stating that a one-time achievement 
must be a major. internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3}. The selection of Nobel 
Laureates. the example Congress provided. is reported in the top media internationally regardless of 
the nationality of the awardees. retlects a familiar name to the public at large. and includes a large 
1 
This case discusses a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then. if fultllling the required 
number of criteria. considered in the context of a final merits determination. S'ee! also l'isin.1caia 1·. Be!c.:r.\. 4 F. Supp. 3d 
126. 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rfialr. U.C..,'CIS. 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.O. Wash. 2011 ). 
2 
.
Matter ofC-.J-R-
cash prize. While an internationally recognized award could conceivably constitute a one-time 
achievement without meeting all of those elements, Congress' example clearly shows that the award 
must be global in scope and internationally recognized in the field as one of the top awards. 
On appeaL the Petitioner asserts that his receipt of a for .. 
in 2007 at the constitutes his one-time 
achievement. According to his submitted documentation , he was awarded the for his 
work on '· · a music video produced for the musical group ' 
A printout from www dated March 2. 2017. lists him as one of the video's two 
directors. 2 
It is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. ~ 1361: Matter ojSkirhal/ Cultural Ctr .. 25 I&N Dec. 799,806 (AAO 2012). As 
such, he must offer sufficient evidence demonstrating that his 2007 Latin Grammy Award qualities 
as "a major, international fly! recognized award." See 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3 ). The Petitioner has 
submitted no documentation, such as media report s or other credible evidence. discussing the 
or confirming that they are major awards that enjoy international recognition. He 
has not presented. for example. evidence that the awards are widely reported by international media 
comparable to other major, globally recognized awards such as an Academy Award or an Olympic 
medal. Without corroborating evidence verifying the awards' status and international recognition. 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his qualifies as a one-time 
achievement. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 3 
As the Petitioner has not established his receipt of a major. internationally recognized award. to meet 
the initial evidence requirements, he must satisfy at least three or the ten criteria listed under 
8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3 )(i)-(x). He has not made such a showing. 
Documentation of' the alien's receipt olfesser nationally or internationally recogni:::ed pri:::es or 
crwardsf(Jr excellence in the field of'endearor. 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3 )(i). 
As discussed above. the Petitioner documented his receipt of a award in 2007. 
Because the record supports a tinding that his prize is both nationall y and internationally recogni zed 
for excellence, the Petitioner established that he meets this criterion. 
"At the time he tiled the petition. the Petitioner was not listed as one of the winners on v.-ww. Atter 
the Director pointed out this discrepancy in his request for evidence, the Petitioner contacted the awarding entity, which 
then added his name to the li st of nine winners. 
·' We will discuss those criteria the Petitioner has raised and for which the record contains relevant evidence. 
.
Malter C?[C-.1-R-
Published material about the alien in pn~f'essiona l or major trade publications or other major 
media. relating to the alien's work in thefieldfhr which classification is sought. S'uch evidence 
shall include the title. date. and author of'the material. and any necesswy translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3 )(iii). 
The Petitioner submits two articles from which are accompanied by certified Eng li sh 
translations. Although one article focuses on his career and accomplishments. the second article 
entitled · primaril y discusses a Venezuelan 
production company. While the Petitioner worked for this company. the published material 
mentions him only once. As such. he has not shown that the second article is about him. rather than 
the company's achievements and current projects. 
As noted, the record contains one article that is about the Petitioner as relating to his work in the 
field of video direction and production. There is no evidence. however, demonstrating that the 
m1icle appeared in a professional publication , a major trade publication. or other major media as 
required under the regulation. The record doe s not include circul ation statistics or distribution 
information about which appears to be a Spanish-language based publication . 
The Petitioner has not established this publication is a professional or major trade journal. Without 
additional corrobor atio n. the Petitioner has not demonstrated he meet s this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien ·s participation. either individually or on a panel. as ajudge of the H'ork of 
others in the same or an alhedfield of'sp ecificationfhr which c/ass!fi cation is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3 )(iv). 
The Petitioner presented documents indicating that he served on the · 
for the 111 2009. The Director 
determined that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. and we concur with this finding. 
Evidence of' the display of the alien 's work in the field at artistic exhihitions or showcases . 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
Although the Director found that the Petitioner met this criterion based on exhibitions of his still 
photography. the record doe s not support this tinding. The evidence demonstrates that the Petitioner 
displayed his photograph y 
at three art exhibitions in 20 I 0 (two in Florida. and one in 
California). 4 He exhibited his photograph s under the name of · 'the artistic name he has 
adopted for his work as a photographer. He has not presented evidenc e s howing that he displayed 
his work in video direction or production. 
The Petitioner's claimed field of endeavor is video direction and production. Specifically . he 
indicates in part 6 of his petition that he intends to enter the United States to work as a "video 
~ The record also contains photocopies of foreign language advertisements and ccrtiticates that appear to indicate the 
Petitioner displayed his photography in other shows. As he has not offered a certified English translation for these 
documents. he has not established their evidentiary value. See 8 C. F. R. ~ I 03 .2(b )(3 ). 
4 
Malter ol( '-.J-R-
producer and director" and to '"produce and direct video and movie productions ... He has not shown 
that the display of his photographs is in the field for which classification is sought which is video 
direction and production. His evidence. therefore. does not establish the display of his vvork in the 
field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 5 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result. \Ve need not provide the type of 
final merits determination referenced in Kazarian. 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless. we have 
reviewed the record in the aggregate. and conclude that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter olC-.f-R-. 10# 669542 (J\AO Dec. 19. 2017) 
5 
Even if the Petitioner meets the display criterion under 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(vii). the record does not demonstrate that 
he satisfies two additional criteria.