remanded EB-1A Case: Film And Television Production

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 15, 2023 In Re: 28562616 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a television and film producer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1 l 53(b )(1 )(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 record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner meets the initial evidence requirements for this classification. 
In addition, the Director entered a separate finding that the Petitioner had willfully misrepresented 
material facts in support of his petition. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
Section 
203(b )( 1 )(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 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). 
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). 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling 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, 
1343 (W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner indicates he is a television and film producer. The record reflects that he was in the 
United States in 0-1 nonimmigrant status at the time of filing. 1 Because the Petitioner has not 
indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally recognized award, he must satisfy 
at least three of the ten alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) . The Petitioner 
claimed to meet four of these criteria, relating to awards, published material about him, display of his 
work at artistic exhibitions or showcases, and leading or critical roles. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), 
(iii), (vii) and (viii). 2 
The Director found in her decision that the Petitioner did not meet any of the regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 3 She further entered a finding that the Petitioner had willfully 
misrepresented material facts related to his achievements. On appeal, the Petitioner contests the 
Director's finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact and requests review of the previously 
1 We acknowledge that the 0-1 classification is intended for nonimmigrants with extraordinary ability or achievement. 
Nevertheless, the record of proceeding for the approved nonimmigrant petition is not before us, and we cannot determine 
whether the facts in that case were the same as those in the present proceeding . Also, the nonimmigrant and immigrant 
categories have different criteria, definitions, and standards for persons working in the motion picture and television 
industry. " Extraordinary achievement" in reference to persons in the motion picture and television industry in the 
nonimmigrant 0-1 category means a very high level of accomplishment in that industry evidenced by a degree of skill and 
recognition significantly above that ordinarily encountered to the extent that the person is recognized as outstanding , 
notable, or leading in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). But in the immigrant context, "extraordinary ability" reflects 
that the individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field. 
2 We note that the Petitioner initially claimed to meet the criterion relating to high salary at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), but 
he did not maintain that he meets this criterion within his responses to the Director's two notices of intent to deny (NOID) 
or on appeal. 
3 The Director indicated in her second NOID that the Petitioner met the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), 
relating to published material, but did not mention this criterion in her decision. 
2 
submitted documentation submitted m support of the claimed evidentiary criteria at 8 e.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), (vii), and (viii). 
For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Director did not provide the Petitioner sufficient 
information that specifically explained the proposed grounds for denial, or give sufficient 
consideration to the Petitioner's NOID responses, and as a result did not adequately support her finding 
of willful misrepresentation. An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition in 
order to allow the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an opportunity 
for meaningful appellate review. See 8 e.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter ofM-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). Accordingly, we 
will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for further consideration and entry of a 
new decision. 
Prior to the denial, the Director issued two NOIDs in which she observed that "it appears that the 
Beneficiary misrepresented his level of expertise, critical role, and published material, which is 
material to whether the beneficiary is eligible for the requested benefit." The Director's NOrDs stated 
as follows: 
The Beneficiary claimed various productions was queried for verification purposes. 
users did not find any evidence to support the beneficiary's claim. The majority of 
evidence submitted made no mention of the beneficiary. After extensive research, 
users did not find any evidence to support the required criteria for this benefit. By 
claiming false claims, the beneficiary willfully made a false representation, and it is 
material to whether[] he is eligible for the requested benefit. users intends to enter a 
finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact against the beneficiary. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner had "willfully made a false representation" by claiming 
"various productions." The Director did not specifically identify the productions queried in attempting 
to verify the Petitioner's claimed expertise, critical role, and published material and, therefore, did not 
provide the Petitioner sufficient information that specifically explained the proposed grounds for 
denial. 
Regarding the first NOTD, the Petitioner, through counsel, responded to the Director's assertions and 
submitted additional evidence intended to rebut the Director's intent to enter a finding of willful 
misrepresentation of a material fact. Specifically, he asserted that he did not make any false claims in 
his petition. He requested review of the previously submitted documentation in support of the claimed 
awards, published materials, display, and leading or critical role criteria, and stated that "[ a ]11 the 
evidence provided and all information explained in the supporting documentation is real work that has 
been performed by the Applicant." His response included an additional letter from L-A-, who 
reaffirmed the Petitioner's work atl INetworks Latin America onl I 
I l and two additional published articles regarding the screening of his short films I I
I k 1997) and I 1(2006) at ft Im festivals. 
In addition, the Petitioner emphasized users' "lack of specificity in this NOrD" in not "specifying 
the basis for the proposed denial sufficient to give the Applicant adequate notice and sufficient 
3 
information to respond, as required by 8 CFR § 103.2(b)(8)(iv)." The Petitioner also noted that for 
the published materials, display, and leading or critical role criteria, the Director provided a summary 
of the requirements for each criterion then stated, without analysis, that "the submitted evidence does 
not meet this criterion." 
As noted, the Director's second NOID again observed that "it appears that the Beneficiary 
misrepresented his level of expertise, critical role and published material," 4 based upon his "claimed 
various productions" which the Director "queried for verification purposes." In response, the 
Petitioner again highlighted several previously submitted recommendation letters discussing his role 
on productions as evidence "that he did not misrepresent his talent in the film/television industry." 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not successfully rebutted her 
initial finding that he had misrepresented a material fact in his "claim to be an acclaimed producer," 
while repeating that it "appears" he "misrepresented his level of expertise, critical role, and published 
material." Here, the denial decision did not address the Petitioner's arguments made in his NOID 
responses, including to consider other evidence in the record such as awards certificates, paystubs, 
letters of recommendation from television and film production companies, and published articles. 
Although she acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of documentation, the Director did not explain 
why the evidence did not overcome her findings in the NOIDs. 
For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the Director's final decision did not provide the Petitioner 
sufficient information that specifically explained the proposed grounds for denial, or adequately 
consider the Petitioner's response to the NO IDs, and as a result, did not sufficiently explain the reasons 
for denial as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i). The Director's decision is withdrawn and the 
matter will be remanded for further consideration, which may include issuance of a new notice of 
intent to deny if the new decision will include a finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact. 
We further observe that the Director's decision was lacking a detailed analysis of the evidence 
submitted in support of the claimed evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). With respect 
to the awards criterion, the Director's analysis was based in part on a determination that the Petitioner 
submitted documentation that she believed to be inconsistent, without identifying specific, unresolved 
inconsistencies in the record. 
Moreover, in evaluating the display and leading or critical role criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) 
and (viii), the Director's analysis was based, in large part, on a blanket determination that the Petitioner 
submitted evidence, including letters of recommendation, that "was specifically created/manufactured 
to fraudulently qualify the beneficiary for this immigrant petition." The Director did not specifically 
identify the fraudulent documentation. In addition, the Director did not indicate that USCIS had 
attempted to verify the authenticity of any of the submitted letters by contacting the authors or had 
otherwise confirmed that they were fabricated. Further, as noted, the Director did not consider other 
evidence in the record. 
As the matter will be remanded, the Director should reevaluate all the documentation the Petitioner 
4 As the Petitioner notes on appeal, this statement is inconsistent with the Director's statement elsewhere in the second 
NOID that he met the published material criterion. 
4 
initially submitted in support of individual evidentiary criteria, along with his NOTD responses and 
arguments on appeal. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
5