remanded EB-1A Case: Film Production

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 25, 2024 In Re: 33380799 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a film producer and cinema expert, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in the arts. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(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 the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements for the classification by establishing his 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or by meeting three of the ten evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 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). A remand is warranted 
in this case because the Director's decision is insufficient for review as the decision lacks sufficient 
analysis and discussion of the evidence in the record and reaches conclusory findings with respect to 
the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested classification. 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. 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with 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; who seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and whose 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 international 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 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 meets the initial evidence requirements through either a one-time achievement or 
meeting three lesser criteria, 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 (W.D. Wash. 2011). 
The Petitioner stated that he accomplished numerous achievements in his field of expertise which have 
been recognized on both a national and international level. Because the Petitioner has not indicated or 
shown that he 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). The Petitioner claims to have satisfied 
four of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (iii), published material about the individual in professional or major media 
• (v), original contributions of major significance 
• (viii), evidence that the individual has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation 
• (ix), evidence that the individual commanded a high salary 
The Director concluded he did not meet any of the claimed criteria and the Petitioner maintains on 
appeal that he meets the four claimed criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner also asserts the Director made 
numerous factual errors and did not fully explain the reasons for denying the petition. The record 
supports the Petitioner's claims. Upon review, we find that the Director's decision did not adequately 
address all the claimed evidentiary criteria or analyze the evidence provided and did not fully explain 
the reasons the petition was denied. 
For example, in the Director's decision, a section was entitled, "Inconsistencies in the record" whereby 
she outlined several of the documents submitted by the Petitioner and stated that the Petitioner 
"provided a volume of evidence that was insufficient to establish eligibility," but does not provide any 
explanation as to what analysis the Director is doing in this part of the decision for this classification. 
It appears that the Director is concerned that the Petitioner did not provide employment verification 
letters from his employers; however, the Petitioner did in fact submit the requested documentation 
even though this is not required evidence for this classification. In addition, the Director noted the 
Petitioner did not provide evidence of his education level from the priority date but a review of the 
submitted evidence does in fact show the Petitioner submitted this evidence in response to the request 
for evidence. 
In addition, the Director noted in the decision that the Petitioner failed to provide a properly certified 
translation of the documents submitted in support of the evidentiary criteria and therefore, the 
documentation was not probative. However, the Director did not explain why the Petitioner's 
2 
translation was not considered a properly certified translation of foreign documents and did not meet 
the standard as outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b ). 
In the denial's analysis of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) regarding published material 
about the Petitioner, the Director noted the Petitioner failed to provide a properly certified translation 
of the documents but did not explain the problem with the certification. In addition, the Director does 
not address the evidence the Petitioner submitted in support of this criterion with any specificity and 
instead summarily concluded that the evidence was insufficient. 
In the denial's analysis of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) regarding original contributions and 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) regarding evidence that the individual has performed in a leading or 
critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation, the Director stated 
that the Petitioner provided letters of recommendation where the writers made general references to 
the petitioner's reputation and noble contributions, however, the "writers attested information and 
work history that is not corroborated or verified by a current of former employer." The regulations do 
not require evidence from a former or current employer to verify original contributions and the 
Petitioner has indicated in the response to the request for evidence that he submitted a letter from his 
former employer that the Director did not sufficiently discuss. The Director also noted the evidence 
had insufficient translation certification but did not further explain. 
Although the Director acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted a "volume of evidence," the 
Director's decision did not address the evidence the Petitioner submitted with specificity and 
improperly dismissed evidence without proper explanation. When denying a petition, an officer shall 
explain in writing the specific reasons for denial. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i). An officer must fully 
explain the reasons for denial to allow the petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and our 
opportunity for meaningful appellate review. Cf Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) 
(finding that an Immigration Judge 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's 
errors deprived the Petitioner of a fair opportunity to appeal the denial and inhibit our ability to 
meaningfully review the denial on appeal. 
On remand, the Director is instructed to re-evaluate the evidence submitted in support of the petition 
to determine whether the Petitioner satisfied the plain language of at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), and to issue a new decision. In doing so, the Director should also review the 
Petitioner's appellate brief and documentation, which further addresses the previously submitted 
evidence. 
As the Director did not conclude that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements, the decision 
did not include a final merits determination. If after review the Director determines that the Petitioner 
received a major, internationally recognized award or satisfied at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
204.5(h)(3), the new decision should include an analysis of the totality of the record evaluating 
whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national 
or international acclaim, 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. 
3 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4