dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Film And Television Production

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 19, 2024 In Re: 32607496 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a film and television producer, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of 
the job offer requirement attached to this classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
qualify for EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability, and did not establish that a 
waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
We dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(ii) . We may grant motions that satisfy the requirements and demonstrate eligibility for 
the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 l&N Dec. 464, 4 73 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new 
evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
In our prior decision, incorporated here by reference, we determined the Petitioner did not establish 
he was an individual of exceptional ability because he did not meet at least three of the regulatory 
criteria. Although the Petitioner met the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) (possessing at least 
ten years of full-time experience in the occupation) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E) (membership in 
professional associations), we explained why he did not demonstrate his eligibility under the two 
remaining criteria he claimed to satisfy and discussed below. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, which 
demonstrates exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D). 
In our prior decision, we explained that the Petitioner's comparison of his renumeration to the 
minimum wage in Colombia was insufficient to meet this criterion because exceptional ability means 
a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(2). On motion, the Petitioner submits an article on minimum salary and a table of the 
historical minimum wage in Colombia from 1984 to 2021. The Petitioner lists his work on productions 
between 2002 and 2021 and states his compensation far exceeded the minimum wage at the time. The 
Petitioner asserts that film and television producers' salaries are significantly higher than the minimum 
wage and they have "exceptional earning capacity" and the ability to thrive in economic environments 
where other workers may face financial constraints. The Petitioner claims comparison of a producer's 
salary to the minimum wage highlights the producer's ability to create job opportunities and contribute 
to the film and television sector's value and economic growth. The fact that film and television 
producers' salaries exceed the minimum wage does not establish that the Petitioner has commanded a 
salary demonstrating exceptional ability in his field. The minimum wage does not reflect the average 
salary of film and television producers such as the Petitioner. 
On motion, the Petitioner also submits a 2023 salary chart of the Colombian Association of Workers 
in the Audiovisual Industry (ACTV), and information on the average salary of audiovisual media 
workers in Colombia from Talent.com and Indeed. The Petitioner states his earnings on numerous 
past productions exceeded the average salary of audiovisual workers on Talent.com. The Petitioner 
states what his past earnings as a production and location manager would be equivalent to today but 
does not specify how he made those calculations. The Petitioner also has not shown that the average 
salary of audiovisual workers is a meaningful comparison to his renumeration as a production and 
location manager, and the information from Talent.com does not include salaries of production and 
location managers. 
The Petitioner also asserts that his salary for the ________ and 
productions in 2017 and 2018 more than doubled the salary listed on the ACTV chart. The ACTV 
chart submitted on motion does not support the Petitioner's claim. The Petitioner states he was paid 
$2,664.68 a month for his work in an unspecified position for I land claims this amount is 
more than double the $1,092 listed on the ACTV chart. However, the rates listed on the ACTV chart 
are weekly and there is no position on the chart that correlates to $1,092. Even if the chart listed that 
amount for the position the Petitioner held onl Ihis weekly compensation was $666, which is 
well below $1,092. The Petitioner states he was paid $7,267.30 for his 13 weeks of work on D I I as a production manager, which he claims exceeds that of the $1,092 listed on the ACTV 
chart. The ACTV chart lists the weekly rate for a production manager as $789.93, which is far above 
the Petitioner's weekly compensation of $559 for I I Finally, the Petitioner states he was 
paid $3,633.65 per month for his work as a line producer on I I which he claims 
exceeds the $1,092 listed on the ACTV chart. However, the ACTV chart does not list compensation 
for the position of line producer. Even if $1,092 was listed as a line producer's weekly rate, the 
Petitioner earned only $908 per week. The ACTV salary chart does not support the Petitioner's claims 
that his renumeration exceeded the compensation listed on the chart. 
On motion, the Petitioner also submits a letter from I-G-R- 1, Head of Production Coordination for 
Colombia. I-G-R- states he hired the Petitioner to work as a Unit 
1 We use initials to protect the privacy of the referenced individual. 
2 
Production Manager for the I I series and the Petitioner "received a salary according to his skill 
and talent, above and beyond the standard compensation for the same position." I-G-R- does not 
specify the amount of the Petitioner's renumeration and his statement is insufficient to overcome the 
differences between the Petitioner's claimed salaries in comparison to the ACTV chart. 
The evidence submitted on motion does not support the Petitioner's claim that he commanded a salary 
demonstrating exceptional ability. On motion, the Petitioner also does not address discrepancies in 
the record regarding his actual renumeration. In our prior decision, we explained that there were 
discrepancies between the wages listed in the chart the Petitioner submitted in response to the 
Director's request for evidence, letters from previous employers, and the English translations of those 
letters. For example, the chart submitted in response to the Director's request for evidence stated the 
Petitioner earned $12,664.78 U.S. dollars (USD) for the I I production, but the English 
translation of the letter from the Production company stated he earned $6,853 USD and the original 
letter in Spanish stated his compensation as 32,000. On motion, the Petitioner does not address or 
resolve this discrepancy or provide additional evidence of his salary onl Ior other productions. 
The Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence of recognition for achievements and sign[ficant contributions to the industry or field by 
peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). 
In our prior decision, we explained that the letters the Petitioner submitted from trade and professional 
organizations did not specify his achievements or contributions to his industry or field. On motion, 
the Petitioner claims I-G-R- testifies to his valuable contribution to the audiovisual industry. I-G-R­
states that when working on the I I series, the Petitioner "demonstrated his exceptional ability 
to manage challenges, including explosions, action scenes, and staging, with many extras and crew to 
handle." I-G-R- further states the Petitioner is "a leading pioneer who has contributed to raising the 
standard of the Colombian industry." I-G-R- praises the Petitioner's "vision and ability to thoroughly 
plan each week of shooting high-risk projects," but does not explain how such vision and ability 
constitutes a significant contribution to the film and television industry or field. While I-G-R- attests 
to the Petitioner's achievements on the I I series, he does not provide sufficient information of 
achievements and significant contributions the Petitioner has made to the audiovisual industry. 
In our prior decision, we also explained that nominations and awards received for projects the 
Petitioner worked on were insufficient to show the Petitioner's significant contributions to his field as 
they were received in categories such as best director, best lead actress in a series, best screenplay, 
best theme song, and best supporting actor. On motion, the Petitioner lists awards received by 
productions he has worked on and asserts the awards evidence his contributions because "audiovisual 
producers are primarily responsible for the project's success, as they supervise and coordinate all 
aspects of its production, from script development to post-production and distribution." However, the 
Petitioner's name is not included in the list of nominees and awardees that he submits on motion. The 
Petitioner does not submit any other evidence that he received nominations or awards for his work in 
the film and television industry. 
The Petitioner does not meet this criterion and does not claim to meet any of the remaining criteria. 
On motion, the Petitioner has not established that he meets at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
3 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii) to establish exceptional ability. Accordingly, we need not conduct a final merits 
determination of whether he has achieved the degree of expertise required for classification as an 
individual of exceptional ability. The Petitioner does not claim to be a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. Consequently, the Petitioner has not established that he qualifies for EB-
2 classification and the motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
Because the Petitioner's ineligibility for EB-2 classification is dispositive of his motion, we again do 
not reach and reserve determination of whether he is eligible for and merits a waiver of the job offer 
requirement in the national interest. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that 
"courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary 
to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining 
to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
4