remanded EB-1A Case: Videography

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 03, 2024 In Re: 30233212 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a videographer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. 
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 I&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 this matter for the entry of a new decision 
consistent with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability classification if they have extraordinary ability 
in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and their achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation; they seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
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 may demonstrate 
international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award). Absent such an achievement, a petitioner must provide 
sufficient qualifying documentation demonstrating that they meet at least three of the ten criteria listed 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
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 fust 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). 
IL ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a videographer who has worked on camera crews for many productions, including 
for a major motion picture and for television and streaming series with a major production company. 
The Petitioner is a graduate of a directing program at I Iand 
intends to continue her work in the United States in the field of television and film production. 
As a preliminary matter, we acknowledge that the Petitioner has been the Beneficiary of an approved 
O-lB petition. Although USCIS has approved at least one O-IB nonimrnigrant visa petition filed on 
behalf of the Petitioner, this prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying an immigrant visa 
petition which is adjudicated based on a different statute, regulations, and case law. The nonirnrnigrant 
and immigrant categories have different criteria, definitions and standards for persons working in the 
arts. "Extraordinary ability in the field of arts" in the nonimrnigrant 0-1 B category means distinction. 
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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that she received a major, internationally recognized 
award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). The Director determined that the Petitioner met one of the criteria she claimed to have satisfied: 
participation as a judge of the work of others in her field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The record 
supports this determination. The Director concluded, however, that the Petitioner did not establish 
that she meets the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), (vii), or (viii). On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts that she meets three of these criteria, and she contends that the Director disregarded certain 
evidence and made significant factual errors in reviewing it, including making assertions that are 
contrary to the evidence submitted. Upon review, we conclude that the Petitioner has met the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and (vii). 
Documentation of the individual's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not address the Director's analysis of her eligibility under this criterion. 
An issue not raised on appeal is waived. See, e.g., Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330, 336 n.5 (BIA 
2021) (citing Matter ofR-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657,658 n.2 (BIA 2012)). 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the individual's work in the field for which classification 
2 
is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner has submitted articles showing that she has been interviewed and her work has been 
discussed in at least one major trade publication, ICG Magazine, which discusses the Petitioner's 
transition from China and her work on several productions. We note that, in denying the petition, the 
Director did not acknowledge evidence submitted regarding ICG Magazine, stating only that evidence 
did not establish that it is a professional or major trade publication or other major media. Information 
from the publisher and from California State University's Entertainment Alliance provide details 
concerning the magazine's significance to the film and television industries. As such, we consider 
this magazine to be a major trade publication. 
Covering similar material, the record includes an article in World Journal, a Chinese language 
newspaper published in North America. While the record includes documentation concerning the 
newspaper's history and distribution, we take administrative notice that open-source searches 
demonstrate that the newspaper is one of the largest Chinese language newspapers in the United States 
with independent operations in several major cities in North America and worldwide circulation. As 
such, we consider this publication to constitute major media. The article discusses the Petitioner's 
family's history working as directors; her own work in television, streaming, and film; and the 
screening of her work at several film festivals. In denying the petition, the Director characterized 
World Journal- without explanation- as a "web portal" that is "open to user-created and marketing 
content." The record initially included the printed article and certified translation which both depicted 
a link to the story at the publication's website. In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director pointed 
out that the link was not functional and, as such, the article could not be verified. In response the RFE, 
the Petitioner submitted the same article as printed from a separate link on the publication's website, 
stating that this was the "updated" link to the article. The Petitioner also submitted the same certificate 
of translation showing the original translation date and the original link. The Director dismissed the 
evidence as having "no probative value for this proceeding," alleging that the article had been deleted 
and revised. Upon review, the foreign-language articles appear identical in content; the main 
difference is that the order of photos of the Petitioner has changed slightly. We see no reason to 
question the credibility of this article. The evidence of record meets the plain language of this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the individual's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
The Petitioner asserts that independent film projects that she has written and directed have been 
exhibited at several film festivals. The record includes documentation about these festivals and lists 
the films included, as well as email messages informing the Petitioner of the festivals' intent to screen 
her films. The record also contains numerous letters from managers in the industry who have worked 
with the Petitioner attesting to the inclusion of her work in these festivals. The evidence of record 
meets the plain language of this criterion. 
We note that, in denying the petition, the Director appears to argue that the Petitioner's various titles 
of "videographer," "l st assistant camera," and "focus puller" are not artistic in nature and therefore 
disqualify her from meeting this criterion; the Director states, "You are not a cinematographer; you 
3 
are a videographer, which is not an artist." Contrary to evidence in the record explaining both the 
technical and artistic nature of a videographer's role-as well as the roles of others on production 
sets-the Director implies that the Petitioner has conflated cinematographers and videographers in 
order to demonstrate the artistic nature of her work. 
On appeal, the Petitioner explicitly disagrees with the Director's characterization, challenging it as, 
"at best, a clear misunderstanding" of the titles and evidence as presented and, "at worst ... a clear 
mistake of fact." The evidence does not demonstrate that the Petitioner claimed to be a 
cinematographer; conversely, the record includes expert opinion letters and independent 
documentation describing various roles related to the intricacies of television and film production­
including the fact that production participants may take on multiple roles regardless of title and that 
titles may have different meanings depending on the project. The record shows that the Petitioner has 
worked in production roles working as a focus puller, overseeing camera crews, and writing and 
directing independently, offering an example of how-as demonstrated by the evidence-many 
enthusiasts enter the production industry learning the technical and organizational aspects of a 
production set and industry to further develop the artistic elements of their roles. Because the record 
shows that the Petitioner's independent work in the field of film production has been displayed at 
artistic showcases, she meets the plain language of this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has met the requisite three often initial evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), 
(iv), and (vii). We therefore need not consider whether she has performed in a leading or critical role 
for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. See 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
We will withdraw the Director's denial of the petition and remand the matter for further review and 
entry of a new decision. The Director may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the 
new determination and any other issues. As such, we express no opinion regarding the ultimate 
resolution of this case on remand. On remand, the Director should conduct a final merits review of 
the evidence of record. The new decision should include an analysis of the totality of the evidence 
evaluating whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, her sustained 
national or international acclaim, her status as one of the small percentage at the very top of her field 
of endeavor, and that her achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation. See section 203(b )(1 )(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 Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4