sustained EB-1B Case: Filmmaking

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 10793556 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAY 25, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Outstanding Professors /Researchers) 
The Petitioner, a university, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an outstanding professor or researcher 
in the field ofl 1 I See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(B), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(B). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary is internationally recognized as outstanding in her academic 
field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief asserting that the Director 
overlooked or did not properly evaluate evidence in the record, and that this evidence establishes that 
the Beneficiary qualifies under the high standards of this immigrant visa classification . 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
The statute requires that beneficiaries under this immigrant visa classification should stand apart in 
their academic area based on international recognition. To establish a professor or researcher's 
eligibility , a petitioner must provide initial qualifying documentation that meets at least two of six 
categories of specific objective evidence and demonstrates the beneficiary is recognized 
internationally within the academic field as outstanding. 
Specifically, section 203(b )(1 )(B)(i) of the Act provides that a foreign national is an outstanding 
professor or researcher if: 
(i) the alien is recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific academic area, 
(ii) the alien has at least 3 years of experience in teaching or research in the academic area, and 
(iii) the alien seeks to enter the United States [for a qualifying position with a university, 
institution of higher education, or certain private employers]. 
To establish a professor or researcher's eligibility, a petitioner must provide initial qualifying 
documentation that meets at least two of six categories of specific objective evidence set forth at 
8 C.F.R § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A)-(F). This, however, is only the first step, and the successful submission of 
evidence meeting at least two criteria does not, in and of itself: establish eligibility for this 
classification. 1 When a petitioner submits sufficient evidence at the first step, we will then conduct a 
final merits determination to decide whether the evidence in its totality shows that the beneficiary is 
internationally recognized as outstanding in his or her academic field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i). 
Finally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(ii) provides that a petition for an outstanding professor 
or researcher must be accompanied evidence that the foreign national has at least three years of 
experience in teaching and/or research in the academic field. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Beneficia: is currently employed as an Associate Professor in the Petitioner's Department of 
I ~ I The record includes a November 2018 letter froml I 
Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Petitioner's Department ofl O I stating 
that the Beneficiary "will continue to teach courses in filmmaking and production; conduct research 
in filmmaking and film production; advise students; and serve on departmental committees." 
In denying the Petition, the Director determined that the Beneficiary met three of the evidentiary 
criteria, thus satisfying the initial evidence requirement, but that the totality of the record did not 
establish the requisite international recognition in her field. Upon review, we agree with the Director 
that the evidence demonstrates the Beneficiary's receipt of major prizes or awards for outstanding 
achievement, published material written by others about her work, and her participation as a judge of 
the work of others. As she therefore meets the initial evidence requirements, we will consider all the 
evidence of record when conducting the final merits determination. 
In a final merits determination, we analyze a researcher or professor's accomplishments and weigh the 
totality of the evidence to evaluate whether a petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the 
evidence 2, that the beneficiary's achievements are sufficient to demonstrate that she has been 
internationally recognized as outstanding in the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(B)(i) of the 
Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i). 
1 USCTS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of outstanding 
professors and researchers. See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with 
Certain Form I-140 Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADI 1-14 
20 (Dec. 22,2010), https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda. 
2 A petitioner must establish that the beneficiary meets the eligibility requirements of the benefit sought by a preponderance 
of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I& N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). In other words, a petitioner must show that 
what it claims is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. To determine whether a petitioner has met its burden under 
the preponderance standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, 
and credibility) of the evidence. Id. at 376; Matter of E-M-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
2 
The Petitioner argues on appeal that the Beneficiary "has achieved international recognition as an 
outstanding professor/researcher in the field oti I' It contends that the Director 
disregarded the stature of the Beneficiary's awards, her scholarly I I contributions, 
mainstream media coverage relating to her work: and scholarly articles in professional publications 
that offered a detailed analysis of her I I For the reasons discussed below, we agree 
with the Petitioner that it has demonstrated the Beneficiary's eligibility. 
The Beneficiar has received several major prizes for outstanding achievement in For 
exam le, her .-----7- _ _J entitled I I won the 
Award for Best ~------~ ward for 
Best at the Festival in,___ ___ __,(2012), and the People's Choice 
A ward at the.__ ________ _. Festival (2011 ). The Petitioner also presented supporting 
evidence (such as media coverage) demonstrating that the aforementioned awards are internationally 
recognized in In addition, the Beneficiary'~ent· he Industrial 
Union Prize and the Sales Distribution Prize at the Festival for 
1;-------,__ ____ _____. (2000), and the .__ __ ----.-___ ___,Newcomer Award for 
.___ ___ ____, (2000). 
With regard to media coverage relating to the Beneficiary's work, the record contains articles from 
news outlets such as CNN, the BBC, Variety, Royal Gazette, and others about the Beneficiary and her 
c::]projects. The Petitioner also provided articles discussin the Beneficia and her work in various 
professional ublications includin Indiana Universit 
Press),.__ ___________________ __,,. ____________ .------,...J 
(University of California, Berkley Press),.__ _____ __, (Duke University Press), and,___ _ ___, 
(Routledge Publishing). Additionally, the Beneficia: has served as a jury member for the 
I I Prize at the I JFestival (2008) and for the I I 
Scriptwriter Competition in Germany (2004). Furthermore she or anized the International 
Symposium and Festival ofl I at........,,,.....,....___,,,,,-----,--.,.........,.~--and the University of 
I IC2017) and is a member oft e Facu ty A vISory Board at the Petitioner's 
Humanities Institute. The record also includes supporting documentation indicating that both the 
Beneficiary's judging experience and the published material about her work are consistent with being 
recognized internationally as outstanding in her academic area. 3 
Additionally, the Petitia~er submitted reference letters from experts in the field, detailing the 
Beneficiary's! Jcontributions and explaining how those contributions are im ortant to the 
academic field. For example, with respect to the Beneficiary's-----~------~-~ 
I II I Founder and Executive Director of th~--------;::::!....::F--=e:..:::s.::ti..:..v=al:.1.,..:::st.::a::.te::..:d::....::.:th.::a::.t...::th:.:.e=-, 
Beneficiary wrote and directed an investigative! !regarding "how._ _______ ~___.I 
sister managed problems and difficulties in different cultural contexts while maintaining her native 
identity." I lex12lained that the Beneficiary's I I provides "a layered historical 
context and discussions of[ I identity from a feminist perspective. This innovative 
approach has elevated [the Beneficiary's] work to the highest artistic levels, garnering it numerous 
awards andc=]festival selections .... " Additionally,! ~ndicated that her organization 
3 For instance, the Petitioner provided circulation information and background material about the publications that 
discussed the Beneficiary's work. 
3 
and otherD festival organizations have deemed "a landmark of 
.__ _____ _. and "certainly one of the most importan we have featured in recent years." 
~~ 
After review of the totality of the evidence in the rerrd, lhich shows the Beneficiary's major prizes 
for outstanding achievement in the field, service as jury member, extensive published material 
about her work, accomplishments i~,__ ___ _.l and the widespread recognition that she has received 
as a result of this work, we conclude that it establishes that she is internationally recognized as 
outstanding in the field. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has submitted evidence which establishes that the Beneficiary meets the requisite two 
evidentiary criteria and is internationally recognized as outstanding in her academic field. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
4