dismissed EB-1A Case: Visual Effects

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8537722 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAY 29, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a visual effects 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
satisfied only two of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three . 
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. 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 sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, 
then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner 
to submit comparable material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner indicates employment in motion pictures as a visual effects producer. Because the 
Petitioner has not claimed 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). 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner fulfilled only two of the initial 
evidentiary criteria, display at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) and commercial successes at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(x). However, for the reasons discussed later, we do not concur with the Director's 
findings for these criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets three additional criteria. 
After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner does not establish 
that he satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on membership with the Producers Guild of 
America (PGA) and the Doordarshan Approved Drama Artist Association (DADAA). In order to 
satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must show that membership in the association is based on being 
judged by recognized national or international experts as having outstanding achievements in the field 
for which classification is sought. 1 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (providing an example of admission to membership in 
the National Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associate that requires individuals to be nominated by an academy 
member, and membership is ultimately granted based upon recognition of the individual's distinguished achievements in 
original research). 
2 
Regarding PGA, the Petitioner previously submitted screenshots from PGA's website reflecting that 
membership requires professional experience in a certain period, such as at least 2 feature films within 
the past 7 years, or at least 5 short films, 2 long-term television programs, 13 episodic television 
programs, or 100 non-episodic television programs for the last 5 years. In addition, the applicant must 
submit a resume and verifying references from one PGA member and two industry professionals. 
However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that attaining a minimum amount of professional 
experience rises to a level of "outstanding achievements" consistent with this regulatory criterion. 2 
Here, the Petitioner did not establish that PGA membership requires outstanding achievements of its 
members. 
Moreover, the screenshots indicate that "[ u ]pon receipt of all materials your application will be 
processed and then vetted by the Membership Committee." However, the Petitioner did not identify 
the individuals on the membership committee and did not establish whether they are comprised of 
recognized national or international experts. 3 On appeal, the Petitioner submits PGA' s "Master 
Committee Manual" that provides an overview of its national and regional committees, chair policies 
and procedures, meetings and events, and budgets and contracts. 4 The manual, however, does not 
reference the "Membership Committee," nor does it show that the committee consists of recognized 
national or international experts. In addition, while the manual contains a "Staff Contact Sheet" listing 
the national and regional directors of membership, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that these 
individuals actually judge the achievements of membership candidates and whether they are nationally 
or internationally recognized experts. 
Regarding DADAA, the Petitioner initially submitted his membership card without any other evidence 
showing the membership requirements and selection process. On appeal, the Petitioner presents 
screenshots from allindiaradio.gov claiming that they are "available audition criterias [sic] applicable 
to the Drama Artists as per Drama Audition Committee." However, the screenshots pertain to radio 
drama auditions in India rather than the membership requirements for DADAA. Here, the Petitioner 
did not establish how the evidence relates to DADAA, let alone how the evidence demonstrates that 
DADAA requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner contends that his recommendation letters reflect his eligibility for this criterion. In 
order to meet the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only has 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7 (instructing that relevant factors that may lead to a 
conclusion that the alien's membership in the associations was not based on outstanding achievements in the field include 
where the alien's membership was based solely on a level of education or years of experience in a particular field). 
3 Id. 
4 The Petitioner also submitted a letter from Jo-Ann B. West, director of operations for PGA, who confirmed the 
Petitioner's membership standing. 
3 
he made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. 5 For example, 
a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the field, have 
remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major significance 
in the field. 
The Petitioner previously submitted job offer letters from.__ _____________ __. 
However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how the letters established his original contributions of 
major significance in the field. On appeal, the Petitioner provides several recommendation letters 
praising him for his talents and abilities. For instance, "I can assure you based on my experience and 
associations that he is one of the very best talents whom I know from India and who has established 
himself over the passage of time through his continued efforts"------, "[the Petitioner's] 
finished works are all testaments and extraordinary ability and it is really astounding that he has made 
his name as an established professional" ______ __,., and "I can assure that he has already 
established himself through his continuous sound efforts and stellar technical performances" 
I I. 6 However, the letters do not establish how the Petitioner's skills are viewed by 
the field as original contributions of major significance. The letters, for instance, do not specifically 
identify the Petitioner's contributions and explain how they have significantly impacted or unusually 
influenced the field in a major way consistent with this regulatory criterion. Moreover, having a 
diverse, unique, or special skill set is not a contribution of major significance in-and-of-itself. Further, 
the record must be supported by evidence that the Petitioner has already used those skills and talents 
to influence the field at a significant level, which he has not shown. In addition, the letters do not 
demonstrate how the Petitioner's talents and skills have been a major influence in the overall field 
beyond the film projects in which he worked. 7 While the letters generally acknowledged the 
Petitioner's participation on unnamed films, they did not establish how the Petitioner's work 
constituted contributions in the field in a significant, major manner. 
Here, the Petitioner's letters do not contain specific, detailed information identifying his original 
contributions and explaining the unusual influence his work has had on the overall field. Letters that 
specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance in the field and its 
impact on subsequent work add value. 8 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics and use hyperbolic 
language do not add value, and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis 
for meeting this criterion. 9 Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, 
Inc. v. The US. Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
5 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9 (finding that although funded and published work may 
be "original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of major significance). 
6 Although we discuss a sampling ofletters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
7 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9; see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding 
a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not conoborate her impact in the field as a 
whole). 
8 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 8-9. 
9 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff' din part 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters that repeat the regulatory 
language but do not explain how an individual's contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish 
original contributions of major significance in the field). 
4 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
As previously mentioned, although the Director determined that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion, 
we disagree. In order to demonstrate eligibility for this criterion, a petitioner must show that his work 
was on display, and the venues were artistic exhibitions or showcases. 10 
The record reflects that the Petitioner provided a self-compiled list indicating 10 film titles with their 
formats, theatrical exhibition territories, and his contributions. While the Petitioner claimed that he 
derived the information from imdb.com and he provided screenshots from IMDb's website regarding 
the films, they do not corroborate his assertions relating to the theatrical exhibition territories and his 
contributions. Moreover, while he indicated that the theatrical exhibition territory covered numerous 
countries, he did not identify which artistic exhibitions or showcases displayed the films. In addition, 
the Petitioner submitted screenshots from the-numbers.com for eight movies regarding box office 
receipts. Again, the screenshots do not show which exhibitions or showcases displayed the films, nor 
do they credit the Petitioner for contributing to the films. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he displayed his work. 11 Specifically, the 
Petitioner's self-comprised list claims his contributions as production coordinator, senior production 
coordinator, and line producer. However, the Petitioner did not establish how his positions involved 
displaying his work in the movies. Moreover, the Petitioner did not show that he displayed his special 
effects for the movies rather than overseeing the work of others. Likewise, although the record 
contains a letter from I l human resources forD who indicated that the Petitioner 
worked on five films as a production coordinator, senior production coordinator, or associate line 
producer, the Petitioner did not show that his producing contributions resulted in his work being 
displayed. 
Moreover, the Petitioner previously argued that his evidence should also be considered as comparable 
evidence. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows for comparable evidence if the listed criteria 
do not readily apply to his occupation. 12 A petitioner should explain why he has not submitted 
evidence that would satisfy at least three of the criteria set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), as well as 
why the evidence he has included is "comparable" to that required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 13 
General assertions that any of the ten objective criteria do not readily apply to an occupation are not 
probative and should be discounted. 14 Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate why he cannot offer 
evidence that meets at least three criteria, including this criterion. The fact that the Petitioner provided 
documentation that does not meet at least three criteria is not evidence that a visual effects producer 
could not do so. Further, the Petitioner did not establish that the other criteria, such as awards, 
published material, judging, and high salary, do not apply to his occupation. 
10 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 9. 
11 Id. at 9. 
12 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 12. 
13 Id. 
14 Id. 
5 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he fulfills this criterion, including through the 
submission of comparable evidence. For these reasons, we withdraw the decision of the director for 
this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner contends eligibility for this criterion based on his positions with.__ _______ _. 
c=], D and the I ~- As it relates to a leading role, the evidence must 
establish that a petitioner is or was a leader. A title, with appropriate matching duties, can help to 
establish if a role is or was, in fact, leading. 15 Regarding a critical role, the evidence must demonstrate 
that a petitioner has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the 
organization or establishment's activities. It is not the title of a petitioner's role, but rather the 
performance in the role that determines whether the role is or was critical. 16 
As it relates to 0, he submitted a letter from I , [ senior human resources manager, who 
indicated that the Petitioner 'joined in the VFx Department and at the time ofrelieving his designation 
was VFx Line Producer." On appeal, the Petitioner refers to a screenshot from producerguild.org that 
indicates that the "Co-Producer /Line Producer is to be granted to the individual who reports directly 
to the individual(s) receiving 'Produced By' credit on the theatrical motion picture," and "[t]he Co­
Producer/Line Producer is the single individual who has the primary responsibility for the logistics of 
the production, from pre-production through completion of production." However, the Petitioner did 
not demonstrate how the evidence shows that in his position as a line producer for a movie he 
performed in a leading role forD overall. Moreover, according to the screenshot, the Petitioner's 
line producer role is in a subordinate role compared to the other positions in a production. For instance: 
The chief of Executive Producer shall only apply to an individual who has made a 
significant contribution to the motion picture and who additionally qualifies ... [as] 
[h]aving secured an essential and proportionally significant part (no less than 25%) of 
the financing for the motion picture; and/or [h]aving made a significant contribution to 
the development of the literary property. 
In addition, whil~ llisted his "key roles and responsibilities," he did not explain how the 
petitioner critically contributed to the successes of0. Instead,! !generally described the 
responsibilities of a line producer without specifically showing how the petitioner performed in an 
essential position fore=] as a whole. 17 
Likewise, regarding D the Petitioner provided two letters from I I human resources, 
who indicated that the Petitioner served as a production coordinator and later as a senior production 
15 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
16 Id. 
17 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10 (stating that letters from individuals with personal 
knowledge of the significance of a petitioner's leading or critical role can be particularly helpful in making this 
determination as long as the letters contain detailed and probative information that specifically addresses how the role for 
the organization or establishment was leading or critical). 
6 
coordinator. 18 The producerguild.org screenshot reflects that "[t]he Production Coordinator reports to 
the person(s) receiving the Produced By credit, the Co-Producer/Line Producer[,] the Production 
Supervisor/Manager[,]or UPM," and "[t]he Post Production Supervisor reports directly to the Co­
Producer/Line Producer." Here, the Petitioner did not establish how the evidence shows that in his 
position as a production coordinator and senior production coordinator for a movie resulted in a 
leading or critical role for c=J, as a whole. In fact, the role of a production coordinator and senior 
production coordinator for a movie is in a lesser role than a line producer. 
Similar to I l's letter,I l also generally described the Petitioner's "key roles and 
responsibilities" without specifically explaining how the Petitioner's role as a production coordinator 
and senior production coordinator for movies resulted in successes fore=] overall. Here] I 
did not elaborate and articulate how the Petitioner contributed to the c=J' s accomplishments in a 
critical way. 
As it pertains td l the Petitioner submitted emails and a letter, including an additional letter on 
appeal, inviting him "to connect at c=J' events and network with others. However, the Petitioner 
did not demonstrate how the documentation establishes that he performed in either a leading or critical 
role by attending and connecting with otherOmembers. 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not show thatc=J, D, andnhave distinguished reputations. 19 On 
appeal, the Petitioner! prordes screenshots regarding~ck share information. Although the 
evidence reflects that is a viable business, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how the evidence 
establishes thatOenjoys a distinguished reputation. Moreover, he submits a screenshot from~s 
website promoting itself and providing background information for the company; however, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate how the screenshot showsc:==1 s eminent reputation. Further, the 
Petitioner offers a screenshot blog from arenach.rm otning the "Top VFX Studios in India You 
Never Heard About." While the blog listsD and it does not explain or justify its claim besides 
~ing a brief history and contact information. Further, the Petitioner presents a screenshot from 
L__Js website advertising itself, and the Petitioner did not supplement the record with independent, 
objective evidence showing that D garnered an excellent reputation. Here, the Petitioner did not 
present sufficient documentation to establish the standings or statures of the organizations. 
Finally, the record reflects that the Petitioner claimed comparable evidence to meet this criterion based 
on the same claims and documentation discussed above. For the reasons previously discussed, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate why he cannot offer evidence that meets at least three criteria, including 
this criterion. As such, he did not show his eligibility for the submission of comparable evidence 
under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he fulfills this criterion, including based on 
comparable evidence. 
18 The record also contains four paystubs indicating his position as an associate line producer, which appears to be in a 
lesser role than a line producer discussed earlier. 
19 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 10 (providing that Webster's online dictionary defines 
distinguished as marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence). 
7 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk or video sales. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 
The Director found that the Petitioner met this criterion. However, we disagree with the Director's 
determination. In order to satisfy this criterion, the evidence must show that the volume of sales and 
box office receipts reflect an alien's commercial successes relative to others involved in similar 
pursuits in the performing arts. 20 
The record reflects that the Petitioner submitted a self-compiled list of ten films reflecting their 
"making cost" and "worldwide recovery." In addition, he provided screenshots from Wikipedia 
regarding background for eight of the films. Moreover, as mentioned under the display criterion, the 
Petitioner provided screenshots from imdb.com and the-numbers.com relating to eight films. 
However, none of the screenshots from Wikipedia, IMDb, and The Numbers credit the Petitioner with 
working on any of the films. Further, while the previously discussed letter from I I indicated 
that the Petitioner worked on five films as a production coordinator, senior production coordinator, or 
associate line producer, the Petitioner did not show that in those positions he was responsible for the 
commercial success of those five films. Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he achieved 
commercial successes in the performing arts consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
Finally, the record reflects that the Petitioner claimed comparable evidence to meet this criterion based 
on the same claims and documentation discussed under the display criterion. For the reasons 
previously discussed, the Petitioner did not demonstrate why he cannot offer evidence that meets at 
least three criteria, including this criterion. As such, he did not show his eligibility for the submission 
of comparable evidence under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
As he did not demonstrate his commercial successes in the performing arts, the Petitioner did not 
establish that he fulfills this criterion, including based on comparable evidence. Accordingly, we 
withdraw the decision of the Director for this criterion. 
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, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the 
Petitioner has not shown that the significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained 
national or international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" 
as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 
20 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 11-12. 
8 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has 
garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and he is one of the small percentage who has 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). Although the Petitioner has experience working in the motion picture industry, the 
record does not contain sufficient evidence establishing that he is among the upper echelon in his field. 
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. 
9