sustained EB-1A Case: Film

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20.529 
- a U.S. Citizenship 
@ 
PUBLIC COPY 
 and Immigration 
+P~,, ,,& Services 
wm data ddeted to 
mea dcarfy mwmanted 
invasion of personal privacy 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: MAY 1 8 
w LIN 06 152 51742 
IN RE: 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Jrl&rocB~U,(.L 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 
sustained and the petition will be approved. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of 
extraordinary ability in the arts. The director determined the petitioner had not established the requisite 
national or international acclaim. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and additional evidence. As will be discussed below, at issue is 
whether the petitioner meets at least three of ten regulatory criteria. On appeal, counsel is responsive to 
the director's concerns regarding the significance of the petitioner's awards. Counsel's response to the 
director's concerns regarding the significance of the petitioner's memberships and the circulation of the 
published material that is primarily about the petitioner, however, is insufficient. Despite this failure, 
we are satisfied that the evidence serves to meet two additional criteria not claimed by prior counsel or 
counsel or discussed by the director. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) 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, 
(ii) 
 the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area 
of extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 
(November 29, 1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of 
expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting 
documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in 
his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant 
criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that 
he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classifL the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a screenwriter and 
film director. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) presents ten criteria for establishing sustained 
national or international acclaim, and requires that an alien must meet at least three of those criteria 
unless the alien has received a major, internationally recognized award. Review of the evidence of 
record establishes that the petitioner has in fact met three of the necessary criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in thejeld of endeavor. 
As acknowledged by the director, the petitioner is the personal recipient of numerous directing and 
screenwriting awards, including the Asian Film Award at the Tokyo International Film Festival, the 
Best Screenplay prize at the Torino International Film Festival and the National Geographic Best 
Indigenous Film at the Santa Fe Film Festival. The record also includes film awards fi-om entities in 
Kazakhstan. In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted 
uncorroborated statements about the significance of each award. On appeal, the petitioner submits 
evidence that the Tokyo International Film Festival is one of the twelve largest film festivals in the 
world. Given the evidence in the aggregate, we are satisfied that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in thejeld at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
While the petitioner has never claimed to meet this criterion and the director did not address it, the 
record contains evidence that the petitioner's films have been screened at major film festivals on 
several continents, 
 above and the Palm Springs International Film 
Festival founded b 
 d at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. We are satisfied 
that the number 
 serve to meet this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
Similarly, the petitioner did not claim to meet this criterion and the director did not address it. 
Nevertheless, the petitioner has produced, authored the screenplay of and directed several movies, some 
of which have been screened and recognized at major film festivals on several continents. The 
to direct his screenplay "Hunter" in Kazakhstan by the Japanese company 
i. This film won awards at major film festivals. We are satisfied that the petitioner 
meets this criterion. 
Finally, our finding that the petitioner is eligible based on meeting three criteria is consistent with a 
review of the evidence in the aggregate. Beyond the evidence discussed above, the petitioner is an 
Page 4 
academician of "NIKA," the Russian Academy of Cinema Arts, although we note that NIKA 
includes at least 500 academicians and counsel's statements regarding the requirements for 
membership are not corroborated in the record. Th 
 ed in is 
the subject of additional articles in papers such as llimmm- We note this evidence 
despite the fact that it cannot be considered under 8 C.F.R. jj 204.5(h)(3)(iii) because not all of the 
. .. .. . 
translations are certified pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(3) -and because the record lacks evidence 
that these publications constitute major media. Nevertheless, the fact that the petitioner has been 
covered, beyond simple reviews of his films, in several publications is consistent with our finding of 
eligibility. 
 While film reviews are not primarily abbut the director, we acknowledge that the 
petitioner's films have been reviewed in such prestigious publications as the In 
addition, we acknowledge the submission of letters of support fi-om the Curator of the Department of 
Film and Media at the Museum of Modern Art, Vice President for Media Programs at the National 
Geogra hic Society, an author of five books on Russian cinematography and the Director of the 
P 
International Film Festival. 
In review, while not all of the petitioner's evidence carries the weight imputed to it by counsel, the 
petitioner has established that he has been recognized as an alien of extraordinary ability who has 
achieved sustained national acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in his field of 
expertise. The petitioner has established that he seeks to continue working in the same field in the 
United States. Therefore, the petitioner has established eligibility for the benefits sought under section 
203 of the Act. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1361. The petitioner has sustained that burden. 
ORDER: 
 The decision of the director is withdrawn. The appeal is sustained and the petition is 
approved.