dismissed O-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 20218937 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR . 23, 2022 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability - 0) 
The Petitioner, a media production agency, seeks to classify the Beneficiary, a senior vice president of 
production finance, as a foreign national of extraordinary ability in business . To do so, the Petitioner 
seeks 0-1 nonimmigrant classification, available to foreign nationals who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. See Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act) section 101 (a)(l 5)(O)(i) , 8 U.S.C. § 110 l(a)( 15)(O)(i). 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
satisfy, as required, the alternative evidentiary criteria applicable to individuals of extraordinary ability 
in business, either a major, internationally recognized award or at least three of eight possible forms 
of documentation. 8 C.F.R . § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)-(B) . We dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent 
appeal on the same basis .1 The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen and a motion to 
reconsider. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, the Petitioner has not met this burden and we 
will dismiss both motions. 
I. LAW 
As relevant here, section 101 (a)(l 5)(O)(i) of the Act establishes 0-1 classification for an individual 
who has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics that has been 
demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim, whose achievements have been 
recognized in the field through extensive documentation, and who seeks to enter the United States to 
continue to work in the area of extraordinary ability. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 
regulations define"[ e ]xtraordinary ability in the field of science, education, business, or athletics" as 
"a level of expertise indicating that the person is one of the small percentage who have arisen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). 
1 SeeID# 17872747(AAOAug.12,2021) . 
Next, DHS regulations set forth the evidentiary criteria for establishing a beneficiary's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of achievements. A petitioner must submit evidence either of "a major, 
internationally recognized award, such as a Nobel Prize," or of at least three of eight listed categories of 
documents. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o)(3)(iii)(A)-(B). If the petitioner demonstrates that the listed criteria do 
not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, it may submit comparable evidence to establish 
eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(iii)(C). When a petitioner provides the requisite evidence, we then 
determine whether the record, viewed in its totality, shows sustained national or international acclaim 
such that the individual is prominent in the field of endeavor. 
In addition, a motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy to the prior 
decision, and a motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts. A motion to 
reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy and 
that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the 
decision. The requirements of a motion to reconsider are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3), and the 
requirements of a motion to reopen are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). We may grant a motion that 
satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit 
II. ANALYSIS 
The issue before us is whether the Petitioner has established that our decision to dismiss its appeal was 
based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy and/or has presented new facts to warrant 
reopening its appeal. The Petitioner must specify the factual and legal issues raised on appeal that were 
decided in error or overlooked in our initial decision. 
A. AAO Decision 
In dismissing the Petitioner's appeal, we acknowledged its claim that it had submitted evidence 
relating to three of the eight criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). We evaluated the evidence 
submitted in support of two of these criteria, including: membership in associations that require 
outstanding achievements and critical or essential capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)(2) and 
(7). Based on our de nova review, we reached the same conclusion as the Director and determined 
that the Petitioner demonstrated the Beneficiary's eligibility for only one criterion, critical or essential 
capacity at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0 )(3)(iii)(B)(7). 
Although the Petitioner also claimed to meet the criterion related to high salary at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(8), we reserved that criterion and did not address it in our decision. The 
regulations require the Petitioner to establish thatthe Beneficiary meets at least three of the alternative 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3 )(iii)(B) to meet the initial evidence requirements for this 
classification. Even if we had determined that the Petitioner met the remaining claimed criterion, our 
decision to dismiss the appeal would have been unchanged, as the Petitioner could not establish that 
the Beneficiary satisfies the initial evidence requirements by meeting only two criteria. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally 
required to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach). 
2 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that we did not give sufficient weight to relevant evidence submitted 
in support of the petition in evaluating the Petitioner's claims made under the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). We address its specific claims below. 
Documentation of the individual's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2). 
Our appellate decision noted thatthe Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary fulfills this criterion based 
on being an ExecutiveMemberofWomeninFilmLosAngeles (WIF LA) andreferencedmembership 
information oravided from that organization and a letter froml 11 I 
I ofWIFLA. 2 
Our appellate decision noted that according to the documentation submitted from WIF LA, 
membership at the Executive Member level is for "industry leaders in film, television, or digital media, 
with advanced experience as industry professionals," and requires payment of $500 and Executive 
Committee review. In addition) I provides that membership at the Executive Member 
level requires review and approval of the application by the Executive Committee of the Board of 
Directors, consideration of "the applicant's advanced experience in the film, television, or digital 
media as an industry professional," and experience at "an advanced or executive level." I I 
also states that membership at the Executive Member level requires that the applicant "must be the 
cream of the crop in their field," although this requirement is not stated elsewhere in the submitted 
materials and no explanation was provided regarding how this factor is weighed. 
In our prior decision, we explained that in order to meet this criterion, the Petitioner must establish the 
Beneficiary's membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought, which require 
outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. 
We found that the Petitioner did not show that membership in WIF LA as an Executive Member is 
reserved to those who have demonstrated outstanding achievements rather than a certain level of 
experience and the payment of dues, and the Petitioner did not demonstrate that possessing the stated 
industry experience is tantamount to outstanding achievements consistent with this regulatory 
criterion. 
In addition, we found that althou 's letter provides that other Executive Members of 
WIF LA include of Fox Family, and I thel I 
for Paramount Pictures, the fact that Executive Members include 
top executives of big companies is insufficient to establish that being an Executive Member requires 
outstanding achievements in the field of business. 
2 
On motion, the Petitioner does not pursue its claim on appeal that the Beneficiary's position as 
I of the Norwegian American ChamberofCommerceLos Angeles Chapter, Inc. meets this criterion. 
3 
We further determined thatl l's letter, indicatingthatthe Executive Committeeofthe Board 
of Directors reviews and approves the membership application, does not indicate whether recognized 
national or international experts judge the outstanding achievements for membership, as required by 
the regulation. Moreover, articles from Variety.com and Thewrap.com reflecting biographical 
information for individuals who became board members inl 2020, and the 2020 WIF LA 
Annual Report listing the names of the "2020 Board of Directors," were insufficient to establish the 
expertise and recognition of those individuals judging the Beneficiary for admission in 2018. 
On motion, the Petitioner argues that we dismissed evidence establishing that WIF LA requires 
outstanding achievements at the Executive Member level, as shown by its requiring "working for years 
in the industry" and being "the cream of the crop in their field," and evidence showing that other Executive 
Members "have outstanding achievements in their field." Rather than dismiss the documentation 
submitted fonn WIF LA, however, our decision analyzed and explained why that evidence did not 
meet the regulatory requirements. As noted in our prior decision, the issue for this criterion is whether 
membership is based on outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts. We determined that the material from the WIF LA website and the letter from I 
did not show that membership at the Executive Member level is reserved to those who have 
demonstrated outstanding achievements and, further, did not address all elements of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2) as it did not indicate whether membership is judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their fields. Moreover, as noted, we explained that the fact that 
Executive Members include top executives of big companies is insufficient to establish that Executive 
Membership requires outstanding achievements in the field of business. 
Based on the foregoing discussion, we conclude the Petitioner has either not addressed or not 
submitted legal arguments to overcome our conclusions with respect to the criterion that we addressed 
in our appellate decision. As noted, we did not reach the merits of the Petitioner's arguments on appeal 
with respect to the remaining claimed criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)(8) because doing so 
could not change the outcome of the decision. Even if we determined that it submitted evidence to 
establish that the Beneficiary meets that criterion, it could not succeed on a claim that it satisfied the 
initial evidence requirement for this classification, which requires itto show that the Beneficiary meets 
three of the alternative evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3 )(iii)(B)(l)-( 8). 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner addresses the merits of the evidence submitted in support of the 
high salary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2( o )(3 )(iii)(B)( 8) at some length in its brief in support of this 
combined motion. 3 It maintains that our decision not to discuss this criterion in our decision was in 
error. However, it does establish how we misapplied the law or policy by declining to address one 
criterion that was not relevant to the outcome of our decision. As we explained above, federal 
agencies, like courts, are not generally required to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the 
results they reach. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25-26. The Petitioner has not established how we erred 
by reserving this issue. 
Had the Petitioner overcome our previous determination with respect to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
3 It resubmits several salary comparisons previously submitted in to the record for the position of"financialmanager"from 
the websites Flcdatacenter.com, Careeronestop.org., Bls.gov, Payscale.com, Money.usnews.com, and Salarylist.com, 
intended to support its claim thatthe Beneficiaiysatisfies the high salaiycriterion. 
4 
§ 214.2(0 )(3)(iii)(B)(2), we would address the merits of the Petitioner's claims regarding the criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(8). However, as it has not done so, we will not address that issue 
here. For the reasons discussed above, we will dismiss the motion to reconsider. 
C. Motion to Reopen 
On motion, the Petitioner submits an article dated I 2015 from Variety.com, repmiing the 
appointment of as the lof WIF LA in support of its claim that the 
Beneficiary satisfies the membership criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3 )(iii)(B)(2). We note that the 
aforementioned2020 WIF LA Annual Report listed I as the organization's! I I I As noted in our prior decision, the issue for this criterion is whether membership is based 
on outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international expe1is. Although this 
article shows that I was thel I of WIF LA when the Beneficiary became 
an Executive Member of the organization, it does not indicate whether membership in WIF LA at the 
Executive Member level is reserved to those who have demonstrated outstanding achievements or 
whether recognized national or international experts judge the outstanding achievements for 
membership, as required by the regulation. Therefore, the Petitioner has not overcome our finding 
that it does not meet the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2). As the evidence does 
not demonstrnte eligibility, we will dismiss the motion to reopen. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner's motion to reconsider has not shown that our latest decision 
was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy, and the evidence provided in support of 
the motion to reopen does not overcome the grounds underlying our previous decision. The motion 
to reconsider and the motion to reopen will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
5