remanded EB-1A Case: Cinematography

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 13904102 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 3, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a director of photography, seeks classification as an individual 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 although the Petitioner 
established that he satisfies the initial evidentiary requirements for this classification, he did not 
establish, as required, that he has sustained national or international acclaim and that he has risen to 
the very top of his field. 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. Upon de nova review we will withdraw the Director 's 
decision and remand the matter for the entry of a new decision consistent with the following analysis. 
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 pet1t10ner can demonstrate 
international recognition of their 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 they 
must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that they meet 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 establishes that they meet 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, iffolfilling 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 record reflects that the Petitioner works in the film and television industry as a director of 
photography. He is the founder ofl I a Florida-based production company. 
As the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must demonstrate that he meets the initial evidence requirements by satisfying 
at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner claimed that he could 
meet six of these criteria, and the Director determined that he met four of them. Specifically, the 
Director concluded that the Petitioner satisfied the criteria related to memberships in associations that 
require outstanding achievements, published materials in major media, judging the work of others in 
his field, and display of his work in artistic exhibitions or showcases. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), 
(iii), (vi) and (vii). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner claimed, but did not establish, that he meets the criteria 
related to lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards and leading or critical roles with 
organizations that have a distinguished reputation. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and (viii). 
Because the Petitioner demonstrated that he met the initial evidence requirements, the Director 
proceeded to a final merits determination. In a final merits determination, the Director must analyze 
all of a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if their 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that they have 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) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1119-20. I 
1 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Ce11ain Form 1-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADll-14 4 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision reflects that he did not consider all the 
evidence together in its totality in determining whether he is eligible for the benefit sought. We agree 
with that assertion as the final merits analysis section of the decision is limited to two very brief 
paragraphs and contains few references to the submitted evidence. For example, although the Director 
determined that the Petitioner satisfied the membership, published material and judging criteria at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (iii), and (vi), no evidence related to these three criteria is mentioned or 
weighed in the final merits discussion or elsewhere in the decision. He simply observes that the criteria 
have been met. In weighing the evidence submitted in support of the display criterion, the Director 
refers to the Petitioner's submission of "copies of festival passes," but does not reference other relevant 
evidence in the record pertaining to the display of the Petitioner's work. 
In addition to not fully weighing the evidence submitted in support of these four criteria, the Director's 
final merits discussion disregarded evidence that the Petitioner had provided in support of two 
additional criteria, as well as evidence he had submitted in support of his claim that he enjoys sustained 
national and international acclaim as a cinematographer/director of photography. Such evidence 
included multiple expert opinion letters and media coverage related to awards he received. Because 
the Director did not consider any of this evidence in the final merits analysis, the decision did not 
sufficiently address why the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is an individual of extraordinary 
ability under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition in order to allow a petitioner a 
fair opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a 
decision must fully explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful 
opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). Here, the Director did not adequately explain 
the reasons for denial of the petition. 
Based on the deficiencies discussed, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter 
for further review and entry of a new decision. As the Director already determined that the Petitioner 
satisfied at least three criteria, the new decision should include an analysis of the totality of the record, 
including additional evidence the Petitioner has provided on appeal. The Director should evaluate 
whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national 
or international acclaim and whether the record demonstrates that he 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. 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. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3