Date of Decision: February 24, 2025
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1A Extraordinary Ability
Field of Expertise: Cinematography
Petitioner Information
Profession: Cinematographer
Field: Cinematography
Nationality: Italy
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied – Petitioner did not establish receipt of a one-time internationally recognized award or meet at least three of ten evidentiary criteria.
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed – AAO affirmed the Director’s denial.
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Judging the Work of Others (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)) – Evidence confirmed petitioner served as a judge at several film festivals.
- Display of Work at Artistic Exhibitions (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii)) – Evidence demonstrated petitioner’s films were showcased at various film festivals.
Criteria Not Met:
- Published Material About the Petitioner (iii) – Submitted articles did not establish publication in major media or major trade publications. Sources such as ritzherald.com and Buzzfeed were not deemed major media. The petitioner’s reliance on website traffic data (Similarweb) for Il Fatto Quotidiano was insufficient without comparative circulation benchmarks.
- Leading or Critical Role for Distinguished Organizations (viii) – While petitioner demonstrated project-based leadership in cinematography, evidence failed to show her roles were for organizations or productions with distinguished reputations. Comparable evidence arguments were not persuasive.
Key Points from the Decision
- USCIS found that monthly visitor data for websites was inadequate to prove major media status.
- Petitioner’s discussion of project-based cinematography roles did not meet the regulatory requirement of leadership within distinguished organizations.
- Festival recognition evidence lacked corroboration from awarding entities.
- Prior O-1 nonimmigrant visa approval was not determinative for EB-1A adjudication, as different legal standards apply.
- USCIS emphasized that EB-1A is highly restrictive and reserved for those at the very top of their field.
Supporting Documentation
- Letters of Intent: Not probative enough to show leading/critical role in distinguished organizations.
- Business Plan: Not applicable.
- Advisory Letter: Submitted but did not overcome evidentiary deficiencies.
- Other Supporting Documentation: Articles, festival references, and project descriptions reviewed but found insufficient.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning: Petitioner satisfied only two criteria (judging and exhibitions) but did not establish published material in major media or leading roles in distinguished organizations. The evidence did not demonstrate extraordinary ability, sustained acclaim, or standing among the small percentage at the very top of the cinematography field.
