sustained EB-1A Case: Film And Television

MATTER OF Y-S-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 12,2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a film and television production company executive, seeks classification as an 
individuaLof "extraordinary ability" in the arts. 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, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
provided documentation satisfying the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.5(h)(3), which requires documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at 
least three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
The matter is no~ before us on appeal. In his appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director erred in 
finding he did not meet at least three of the ten regulatory criteria under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The Petitioner further states that the evidence demonstrates his standing as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the Petitioner's appeal. For the reasons discussed below, the 
Petitioner has established his eligibility for the classification sought. 
I. LAW 
The Petitioner may demonstrate his extraordinary ability through sustained national or international 
acclaim and achievements that have been recognized in her field through extensive documentation. 
Specifically, section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act states: 
Aliens with extraordinary ability. --An alien is described in this subparagraph 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, 
(b)(6)
Matter of Y-S-
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work m 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 achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is a 
major, internationally recognized award). If he does not submit this documentation, then he must 
provide sufficient qualifying evidence that meets at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C .F.R. 
§ ~04.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. 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 fulfilliQg 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); Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N De~. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) examines "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both 
individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be 
proven is probably true"). Accordingly, where a petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at 
least three criteria, we will determine whether the totality of 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Petitioner is the chief executive officer (CEO), co-founder, and executive producer of 
a film and television production company that he established in 1998. In this 
case, the Petitioner has not shown that he is the recipient of a qualifying award at a level similar to 
that of an Oscar from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. As such, he must provide 
at least three of the ten types of documentation listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met the judge of the work of others criterion under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). For instance, the Petitioner participated as a jury member at the 
Accordingly, the record supports the Director's finding that the 
Petitioner meets this criterion. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of Y-S-
In addition, we find that the Petitioner has met the published material criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). For example, published an article about him and his company's expansion 
entitled The Petitioner offered supporting 
documentation indicating that is a major trade publication in the film and television industry. 
The Petitioner has therefore met the published material criterion. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has performed in a leading role for a distinguished organization under 
the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). As CEO and co-founder of the Petitioner has 
led the company's business operations and coordinated its television and film productions. He 
provided a report entitled ' 
listing among "the principal players in the Russian film production 
sector" and identifying the company as the largest private film studio in the 
The record also included documentation of awards received by and news articles about the 
company as further evidence of its distinguished reputation in the television and film industry. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has met this third criterion. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the reqms1te initial evidence, we will conduct a final merits 
determination. We will consider the entire record in the context of whether the Petitioner has 
demonstrated: (1) that he enjoys a level of expertise indicating that he is "one of a small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field"; and (2) that he has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the field. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the 
Act; 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Based on the 
documentation, and consistent with Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1994), 
the Petitioner has made the requisite showing. 
The Petitioner provided articles about him and his work for in publications such as 
and The Petitioner was also mentioned in articles on 
the websites of and news agency. We find that 
the submitted news coverage of the Petitioner in major trade publications and other major media is 
indicative ofhis sustained national or international acclaim in the television and film industry. 
At the m the Petitioner received the ' 
(2009) for his significant contribution to the development of the 
Russian television industry. The Petitioner also provided media coverage of the forum and its 
awardees as evidence of his prize's national recognition in the television industry. 
With respect to the Petitioner's contributions in the Russian film and television industry, 
Director of Research for the and a 
1 The 
Europe. 
is a public service organization that gathers and circulates information about the audiovisual industry in \ 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of Y-S-
former professor in the stated that he is "familiar with 
[the Petitioner's] work by reputation." mentioned that the Petitioner founded and leads 
"one of Russia's largest and best known film and television companies." further 
noted that the Petitioner oversaw construction of "Russia's first purpose-built film and 
television-making complex in sixty years" and that his company has "produced or serviced over 400 
film and television projects." In addition, indicated that as of 2012, "held 14.1% 
market shares of Russian film studios by number of stages and stage area size, the largest of any 
private film and television studio in Russia." statements are supported by online news 
articles and other documentary evidence in the record. For instance, the website of the 
reported that spoke at a conference on the status of the 
Russian film industry at shortly after the company's film studios opened in and 
that in his remarks, acknowledged the expansion of Moreover, online news articles 
reflect that the Petitioner has fostered development of the Russian film and television market 
internationally by entering into groundbreaking co-production agreements with companies in China 
and India. 1 
In addition to his leading role for 
boards of the 
the Petitioner is a member and serves on the governing 
and the 
The Petitioner submitted evidence ~ndicating that membership in the is 
"limited to only 27 individuals" and is reserved for those with major contributions in the Russian 
film and television industry. Furthermore, films produced by the Petitioner have been screened at 
prestigious international film festivals such as the and the 
Lastly, the Petitioner participated as a television series' juror with four other international experts at 
the 
The record, in the aggregate, confirms that the Petitioner enjoys a level of expertise consistent with a 
finding that he is one of a small percentage who has risen to the very top ofthe field of endeavor, 
that he has sustained- national or international acclaim, and that his achievements have been 
recognized in the field of"'expertise. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.'5(h)(2), (3); 
see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Accordingly, the Petitioner has established by a 
preponderance of the evidence that he is eligible for the exclusive classification sought. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has submitted qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria 
and has documented that he has attained a "level of expertise indicating that [he] is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor" and "sustained national or 
international acclaim." The Petitioner's achievements have been recognized in his field of expertise. 
He has shown that he seeks to continue working in the same field in the United States and that his 
entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has demonstrated his eligibility for the benefit sought under section 203 of the Act. 
4 . 
Matter of Y-S-
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the Petitioner 
has met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter ofY-S-, ID# 46963 (AAO Oct. 12, 2016) 
5