dismissed O-1B Case: Acting

(b)(6)
' 
Date: MAR 2 1 2013 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
: (J;~: :J)ep&ftiii~n~. o.r ,llcillie~iJCI ~~rity 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE:' 
PETITION: Petition fora Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(0)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630: The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
..._?.:5 " .. ~.: :.:.~; ~~' ~ .· ~ v~ , .. : . 
RonRo ·.· Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
(b)(6)
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the 
appeal. 
The petitioner filed this petition seeking to classify the beneficiary as an 0-1 nonimmigrant pursuant to 
section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), as an alien with 
extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or television industry. The petitioner, a New York 
limited liability company based in California, is a motion picture production and distribution company 
that seeks to employ the beneficiary as an actress for a period of two years. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has 
a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement in the motion picture and television industry. In 
denying the petition, the director determined that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary 
has been nominated for or has been the recipient of a significant national or international award, 
pursuant to 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(A), or that she has met three of the six evidentiary criteria set forth 
at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B). 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the 
director's decision is "arbitrary and capricious," stating the director "made inconsistent and illogical 
conclusions that do not relate to one another." Counsel asserts that the petitioner has established the 
beneficiary's eligibility under at least three of the criteria evidentiary criteria applicable to immigrant 
petitions for aliens of extraordinary ability; Counsel submits a brief statement and additional 
documentary evidence in support of the appeal. 
I. TheLaw 
Section 101(a)(l5)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(0)(i), provides classification to a qualified 
alien who has, with ~egard to motion picture and television productions, a demonstrated record of 
extraordinary achievement, whose achievements have been recognized' in the field through extensive 
documentation, and who seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary 
ability. The extraordinary ability provisions of this visa classification are intended to be highly 
restrictive. See 137 Cong. Rec. S18247 (daily ed., Nov. 16, 1991). 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(ii) provi~es the following pertinent definition: 
Extraordinary achievement with respect to motion picture ·and television productions, 
as commonly defmed in the industry, means a very high level of accomplishment in 
the motion picture or television industry evidenced by a degree of skill and 
recognition significantly above that ordinarily encountered to the extent that the 
person is recognized as outstanding, notable, or leading in the motion picture or 
television field. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v) states, in pertinent part: 
(b)(6)
Page3 
Evidentiary criteria for an O,.J alien of extraordinary achievement in the motion pictUre 
of television industry. To qualify as an alien of extraordinary achievement in the motion 
picture or television industry, the alien must be recognized as having a demonstrated 
record of extraordinary achievement as evidenced by the following: 
(A) Evidence that the alien has been nominated for, or has been the recipient of, 
significant national or international awards or prizes in the particular field such 
as an Academy Award, an Emmy, a Grammy, or.a Director's Guild Award; or 
(B) At least three of the following forms of documentation: 
( 1) Evidence that the alien has performed, and will perform, services as a lead 
or starring participant in productions or events which have a 
distinguished reputation as evidenced by critical reviews, advertisements, · 
publicity releases, publications, contracts, or endorsements; 
(2) Evidence that the alien has achieved national or international recognition 
for achievements evidenced by critical reviews or other published 
materials by or about the individual in major newspapers, trade journals, 
magazines, or other publications; 
( 3) Evidence that the alien has performed, and will perform, in a lead, 
starring, or critical role for organizations and establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation evidenced by articles in newspapers, trade 
journals, publications, or testimonials; 
(4) Evidence that the alien has a record of major commercial or critically 
acclaimed successes as evidenced by such indicators as title, rating, 
standing in the field, box office ·receipts, motion picture or television 
ratings, and other occupational achievements reported in trade journals, 
major newspapers, or other publications; 
( 5) Evidence that the alien has received significant recogrutton for 
achievements from organizations, critics, government agencies, or other 
recognized experts in the field in which the alien is engaged. Such 
testimonials must be in a form which clearly indicates the author's 
authority, expertise, and knowledge of the alien's achievements; or 
I 
(6) Evidence that the alien has either commanded a high salary or will 
command a high salary or other substantial remuneration for services in 
relation to others in the field, as evidenced by contracts or other reliable 
evidence. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 CF.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii) requires the petitioner to submit copies of any 
written contracts between the petitioner and the beneficiary; an explanation of the nature of the events 
(b)(6)
Page4 
or activities, along with an itinerary; and two consultations, one from an appropriate union and one 
from an appropriate management organization. 
Additionally,' the regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(2)(iii) provides: 
The evidence submitted with an 0 petition shall conform to the following: 
(A) Affidavits, contracts, awards, and similar documentation must reflect the nature of 
the alien's achievement and be executed by an officer or responsible person 
employed by the institution, firm, establishment, or organization where the work 
was performed. 
(B) Affidavits written by present or former employers or recognized experts certifying 
to the recognition and extraordinary ability ... shall specillcally describe the 
. alien's recognition and ability or achievement in factual terms and set forth the 
expertise of the affiant and the manner in which the affiant acquired such 
information. 
It is noted that the decision of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in a given case is 
dependent upon the quality of the evidence submitted by the petitioner, not just the quantity of the 
evidence. The mere fact that the petitioner has subniitted evidence relating to three of the criteria as 
required by the regulation does not necessarily establish that the alien satisfies the criteria and is eligible 
.for 0-1 classillcation. The evidence submitted must establish that the beneficiary qualifies as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. See 59 Fed. Reg. 41818-01,41820. 
In determining the beneficiary's eligibility under these criteria, the AAO will follow a tWo-part approach 
set 
forth in a 2010 decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Kazarian v. 
USC/S, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Similar to tlie regulations governing this nonimmigrant 
classification, the regulations reviewed by the Kazarian court require_ the petitioner to submit evidence 
pertaining to at least three out of ten alternative criteria in order to establish a beneficiary's eligibility as 
an alien with extraordinary ability. Cf. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Although the court upheld the AAO's 
decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of evidence submitted to 
meet a given evidentiary-criterion. The court concluded that while USCIS inay have raised legitimate 
concerns abqut the sigffificance of the evidence submitted to meet two of the criteria, those concerns 
should have been raised in a subsequent "fmal meritS determination." ld at 1121-22 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient·evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types ofevidence (as the AAO concluded)." /d. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is frrst 
counted and then, if qualifying under at least three criteria, considered in the context of a fmal merits 
determination. 
(b)(6)
Page5 
' The AAO fmds the Kazarian court's two-part approach to be appropriate for evaluating the regulatory 
criteria set forth for 0-1 noninunigrant petitions for aliens of extraordinary ability at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii), (iv) and (v). Therefore, in reviewing Service Center decisions, the AAO will apply 
the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO will conduct a new 
analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis rather than the two­
step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 P.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) 
(noting that the AAO reviews appeals on a de novo basis). 
In this matter, the AAO has reviewed the evidence under the plain language requirements of. each 
criterion claimed. As the petitioner has failed to submit evidence· that satisfies three of the evidentiary 
criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B), the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy 
the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence; 
II. Discussion 
The sole issue to be addressed is whether the petitioner submitted evidence. to establish that the · 
beneficiary satisfies the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(A), or at least three of the six 
criteria set forth at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B). · 
The record consists of a petition with supporting documentation, a request for additional evidence 
(RFE) and the petitioner's reply, the director's decision, and an appeal. The beneficiary in this case is 
a native and citizen of the Romania. The evidence in the record indicates that the beneficiary has 
worked as an actress in the entertainment industry since approximately 2005 in various 
types of 
positions. In a letter submitted in support of the petition, the petitioner's president, 
stated that the petitioner is scheduled to produce the "action packed fiction movie" titled ' 
. ' and requires the "extraordinary ability" of the beneficiary to perform "a key role in our 
· productions as a lead actress. [The beneficiary] will portray the role of " The petitioner 
states it will also require the beneficiary's services in "our second and third productions, which are 
soon to be arranged." 
In denying the petition, the director found that the .petitioner had failed to satisfy evidentiary criterion 
set forth at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(A). The director also noted that the evidence submitted did not 
relate to at least three of the six criteria set forth at the 8C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B), and that the quality 
of the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish that the beneficiary's achievement in the motion 
picture or television industry has risen to the level where she is recognized as outstanding, notable, or 
leading in her field. 
Upon review, and for the reasons discussed herein, the petitioner has not established that the 
beneficiary is fully qualified as an alien with extraordinary achievement in the motion picture and 
television industry pursuant to the regulatory defmition and evidentiary criteria applicable to the 0-1 
visa classification. 
(b)(6)
Page6 
A. The Evidentiary Criteria 
If the petitioner establishes through the submission of documentary evidence that the beneficiary has 
been nominated for or has received a significant national or international award or prize in his or her 
field pursuant 
to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(A), then it will meet its burden of proof with respect to the 
beneficiary's eligibility for 0-1 classification. Here, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that the 
beneficiary has been nominated for or received a significant national or international award or prize 
comparable to an Academy, Emmy or Grammy Award. 
As there is no evidence that the beneficiary has been nominated for or-received a significant national or 
international award or prize, the petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility under at least three 
of the six criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B). 
Evidence that the alien has performed, and will perform, services as a lead or starring 
participant in productions or events which have a distinguished reputation as evidenced 
by critical reviews, . advertisements, publicity releases, publications, contracts, or 
endorsements 
In order to meet criterion number one, the petitioner must submit evidence that the beneficiary has 
performed, and will perform, services as a lead or starring participant in productions or events which 
have a distinguished reputation as evidenced by critical reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, 
publications, contracts or endorsements. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(l). Upon review, the petitioner 
has not submitted evidence to establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that appears to establish that the beneficiary played a leading role, 
referred to as " " in the Romanian television series titled ' ' [' 
'] (2009/2010). The petitioner submitted a copy of two publications, an October 12, 
2009 article from which discusses the ·~ j ' and mentions the 
applicant as one of two theater students acting in the series, and an undated, unattributed article about 
the applicant from which discusses her leading role as ' 
A ' in the television sitcom '' The evidence of record further contains 
two letters from , director of the series ' " describing the beneficiary's 
role as "one of our main cast" and ''the lead actor." 
The petitioner also submitted evidence that appears to establish that the beneficiary played a leading 
role, the role of ' ' in the television series titled " ] (2006). The evidence 
of record contains an undated letter from I , director of the series, describing the beneficiary's 
role in the series as, "the most important 
female lead. The plot of the show placed at the center 
of the action for most episodes." 
The petitioner further submitted evidence that the beneficiary had roles in Romanian television 
productions as follows: host for unidentified call-in television shows in 2005; presenter/moderator for 
the television show " (2008/2009); successful competitor on the television show 
"(2010/2011); and presenter of the television show' "(2011/2012). 
(b)(6)
Page? 
However, the evidence presented does not establish that the applicant performed services as a lead or 
starring participant in those productions or events. 
In a support letter the petitioner also asserts that the beneficiary played leading roles in movies that 
. ld.. d 1 .. me u e =--- _____ _______ ___ . . an te ev1s10n 
shows such as · ' The evidence of record further 
contains a letter from area director for Romania's' in Romania, 
who states that the beneficiary was a presenter for the company's television shows. However, the 
evidence of record is lacking in documentation establishing that the beneficiary performed services as a 
lead or starring participant in those productions or events. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft 
of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). · 
Further, the petitioner must establish that the productions or events in which the beneficiary performed a 
leading or starring role have a distinguished reputation. The petition~r submitted three ratings sheets 
from Prima TV for October and November 2009, which indicate the rating and audience share for the 
show " ' for that period. The evidence of record also contains an undated letter from 
one of the show's producers, , referring to the ratings sheets as evidence of the show's 
' success "for the first three months the show was broadcasted." However, evidence that the show may 
have had a high rating or audience share in the first few months it aired does not establish 
that the show 
has a distinguished reputation. 
The evidence of record also contains a letter dated October 30, 2012 from , stating that 
the series " ' aired on Romania's "National TV" channel, and · that the series "enjoyed 
immense success for years, rariking at the top ~f the ratings charts out of all the TV series they 
broadcasted." He states that the series received the "National TV" award for the highest rating in prime 
time for three years in a row. However, the record is lacking documentation to establish that the show 
had a distinguished reputation. 
The evidence of record also contains a letter from . producer of the television show 
_ " stating that the beneficiary, as presenter of the show in its ninth season, 
made the ninth season "one of the best seasons we had and also the season with the highest ratings of 
them all." However, the record is lacking documentation to establish that the show had a distinguished 
reputation. 
Based on this evidence, the AAO cannot conclude that the beneficiary has been employed as an 
actress in a leading or starring role for a television or motion picture production event that has a 
distinguished reputation. 
The evidence of record is also lacking in documentation establishing that the beneficiary will 
perform services as a lead or starring participant in productions or events which have a distinguished 
reputation in the United States. The petitioner indicates that the beneficiary will perform in a motion 
picture, " " and in two future productions which 
have not yet been scheduled. There is no 
evidence to establish that these films could be considered to have a distinguished reputation or to 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
establish that the beneficiary will perform in a leading or starring role in these films. The submitted 
"Deal Memo" and "Itinerary" regarding the beneficiary's role in the film "~ · :" contain no 
reference to whether the beneficiary is a lead or starring participant in the film, and there is no 
documentation, such as a press or publicity releases regarding either '' ' or the petitioner's 
future productions. 
Accordingly, the beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has achieved national or . international recognition for 
achievements evidenced by critical reviews or other published materials by or about the 
individual in major newspapers, trade journals, magazines, or other publications 
In order to establish that the beneficiary meets the second criterion, the petitioner must submit evidence 
that the alien has achieved national or international recognition for achievements evidenced by critical 
reviews or other published materials by or about the individual in major newspapers, trade journals, 
magazines, or other publications. 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(2). 
The published materials submitted include: ( 1) an undated, unattributed interview with the applicant 
from www.hlog.coolgirl.ro which discusses her havfug won the ' television show 
competition; (2) an undated, unattributed article about the applicant from www.PROTV.magazine.ro, 
which discusses her leading role as ' in the television sitcom " " 
(" ); (3) an undated interview with the applicant in which 
discusses various roles she has performed as an actress in the theater, but makes no reference to the 
beneficiary's work in television or film; (4) an undated article from Theatrical Searches, which 
reviews the play' . ')and briefly discusses the applicant's performance, but makes 
no reference. to the beneficiary's work in television or film; (5) an October 12, 2009 article from 
which discusses the television sitcom " ' and mentions the 
applicant as one of two theater students acting in the series; (6) a television program list describing the 
television sitcom " and identifying the applicant and other members in an 
accompanying cast photograph; and (7) a January 6, 2011 press release in stating the 
applicant, as the winner of the " television show, will which host the television show titled 
,! 
While two of these articles appear to have been published in magazines, the articles do not establish that 
the beneficiary has achieved national or international recognition for achievements as an actress in 
motion pictures or television. 
1The petitioner has also submitted a January 14, 2011 article in regarding the applicant hosting the 
television show ' '' However, the petitioner has not submitted an English translation for this 
foreign language article. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) states, "Translations. Any document containing 
foreign language submitted to [CIS] shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator has 
certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the 
foreign language into English." Because the petitioner failed to submit certified translations of the document, this 
evidence will not be accorded any weight in this proceeding. 
(b)(6)
Page9 
Therefore, the beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
Evidenee that the alien has performed, and will perform, in a lead, starring, or critical 
role for organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation 
evidenced by articles in newspapers, trade journals, publications, or testimonials 
In order to establish that the beneficiary meets the third criterion, the petitioner must submit evidence 
that the alien has performed, and will perform, in a lead, starring, or critical role for organizations and 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation evidenced by articles in newspapers, trade journals, 
publications, or testimonials. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(3). 
As stated above, the petitioner submitted evidence that appears to establish that the beneficiary played a 
leading role in the Romanian television series titled " '1 
(2009/2010), produced by Prima TV. The petitioner also submitted evidence that appears to establish 
that the beneficiary played a leading role in the television series titled ' 1 (2006), 
produced by National TV. 
The petitioner submitted ratings sheets from www.oalrinademedia.ro for Prima TV for October, 
November and December 2009, and January 2010. The ranking sheets indicate that the company's 
television channels for that period are consistently not the top-three-rated television channels. This 
evidence fails to establish that this company, for which the beneficiary has performed, enjoys a 
distinguished reputation in .the motion picture or television industry. 
Moreover, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary will perforin in a lead, starring or 
critical role for an organization or establishment that has a distinguished reputati()n under the approved 
petition. In support of the petitioner's assertion that it is "a brilliant entertainment company" whose 
"presence in Hollywood is widely established", counsel submits on appeal the following: 
• A press release in the June 4-10, 2002 edition of stating the 
petitioning company has hired as vice president of worldwide acquisitions and 
co-productions. 
• Two articles, in the June 14, 2002 edition of and the May 17, 2002 edition of 
respectively, stating the petitioning company has hired as vice president 
of worldwide acquisitions and co-productions, and that the petitioning company is 
moving "from a film distribution company to an acquisitions and production company"; 
• An article dated January 2004 from discussing the petitioning 
company's business history, business model, long-term strategy, and the petitioner's wish 
to "shoot and distribute its own productions through its offices in Bulgaria; 
• An undated press release from Focus on New Media, stating that the petitioning company 
currently features a selection of programming on its own dedicated website; 
• An interview/press release with the petitioning company's president, , dated 
December 15, 2003 - January 15, 2004 in discussing the petitioning 
company's success in the Romanian market and its future development strategy; 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
• A · press release in an undated edition of stating the petitioning 
company launched a production division and announced the establishment of new offices 
in Latin America; 
• A press release in an undated edition of stating that the petitioning company has 
signed a two-picture deal with to handle international sales of two films; 
• Three press releases, in an undated edition of the January 19, 2004 edition of . 
and at on January 22, 2004, respectively, stating that ~=<"""" 1 Films has completed a deal with the petitioning company for distribution of 
movie . :" in Eastern Europe and Latin America; 
• A press release in the January 20, 2004 edition of quoting the petitioning 
company's president, stating that the company is opening more distribution 
offices "in its Eastern Europe and Latin America stronghold;" 
• An article in the February 29, 2004 edition of . quoting the 
petitioning company's president stating that in opening multiplexes, 
• A press release in the February 23, 2004 edition of stating the petitioning company 
has acquired international sales rights outside North America to three Films; 
• Advertisements in the March 1, 2004 edition of and the May 12, 
2004 edition of respectively, listing several films the petitioning company is 
distributing. 
While three of these articles appear to have been published in magazines, the articles that the 
petitioner· submits on appeal do not establish that the petitioning company enjoys a distinguished 
reputation in the motion picture or television industry. · 
Moreover, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary will perform in a lead, starring or 
critical role for the petitioner. As stated above, the petitioner indicates that the beneficiary will 
perform in a motion picture, ": ' and in two future productions which have not yet been 
scheduled. There is no evidence to establish that the beneficiary will perform in a leading or starring 
role in these films. The submitted "Deal Memo" and "Itinerary" regarding the beneficiary's role in 
the film ' 
' contain no reference to whether the beneficiary is a lead or starring participant 
in the film or any future productions. 
Based on the foregoing, the AAO concurs with the director that the submitted evidence does not satisfy 
the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(3). 
Evidence that the alien has a record of major commercial or critically acclaimed 
successes as evidenced by such indicators as title, rating, standing in the field, box office 
receipts, motion picture or television ratings, and other occupational achievements 
reported in trade journals, major newspapers, or other publications 
To establish that the beneficiary meets the fourth criterion, the petitioner must establish that the 
beneficiary has a record of major commercial or critically acclaimed successes as evidenced by such 
indicators as title, rating, standing in the field, box office receipts, motion picture or television 
ratings, and other occupational achievements reported in trade journals, major newspapers, or other 
(b)(6)
Page 11 
publications. 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(4). The director determined that the beneficiary met his 
criterion, without discussion. The AAO disagrees with the director's determination. 
As discussed above, the petitioner submitted three ratings sheets from for October and 
November 2009, which indicate the rating and audience share for the show'" _ _ - - ., for 
that period, the first three months the show was broadcast. However, evidence that the show may have 
had a high rating or audience share in the first few months it aired does not establish that the beneficiary 
has a record of major commercial or critically acclaimed successes. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted ratings sheets from , the 
producer of" j ' for October, November and December 2009, and January 2010. The 
ranking sheets indicate that the company's television channels for that period are consistently not the 
top-three-rated television channels. This evidence fails to establish that the beneficiary has a record of 
major commercial or critically acclaimed successes. 
The regulations do not indicate that this criterion can be met through "a detailed explanation" or 
through "letters of recommendation" from the beneficiary's colleagues and teachers. Rather, this 
criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence that there is a published record of the 
beneficiary's · critical or commercial success, such that her achievement is acknowledged in the 
industry-at-large. The petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has received significant recognition for achievements from 
organizations, critics, government agencies, or other recognized experts in the field in 
which the alien is engaged. Such testimonials must be in a form which clearly indicates 
the author's authority, expertise, and knowledge of the alien's achievements; 
In order to meet the fifth regulatory criterion, the petitioner may submit evidence that the beneficiary 
has received significant recognition for achievements from organizations, critics, government 
agencies, or other recognized experts in the field in which the alien is engaged. Such testimonials 
must be in a form which clearly indicates the author's authority, expertise, and knowledge of the 
alien's achievements. 
Further, the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(iii)(D) provides that affidavits written by.present or 
former employers or recognized experts certifying to the recognition and extraordinary ability shall 
specifically describe the alien's recognition and ability or achievement in factual terms and set forth the 
expertise of the affiant and the manner in which the affiant acquired such information. 
The petitioner has provided recommendation letters in support of the petition from 13 individuals all 
of whom are from the beneficiary's immediate circle of mentors, colleagues and collaborators. 
While the statements are highly complementary with respect to the beneficiary's talent and potential, 
they do not directly discuss the beneficiary's achievements or accomplishments in any detail, or her 
recognition in the industry. Rather, the statements suggest that the beneficiary is regarded as an 
actress who is prepared to move to higher levels of achievement and recognition within the industry, 
rather than as an actress who is already regarded as leading or renowned in the field. 
(b)(6)
Page 12 
While the AAO recognizes that the individuals who provided letters hold a very high opinion of the 
beneficiary's talent and potential,. the submitted testimonials do not satisfy the evidentiary criterion at 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(S). None of the persons providing testimonials have clearly indicated 
their knowledge of the beneficiary's achievements in the field of acting. Furthermore, the petitioner 
has not established that any of the individuals providing letters could be considered a "recognized 
expert" in the television and motion picture industry or in the acting profession. While reference letters 
can satisfy the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(5), to do so the letters must reflect that the 
beneficiary has a very high level of accomplishment in the motion picture or television industry to 
the extent that she is recognized as outstanding, notable, or leading in the motion picture or 
television field. Subjective assessments of talent cannot suffice in this regard. Furthermore, an artist 
whose reputation is largely contmed to former instructors and colleagues has not achieved a degree 
of recognition significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the motion picture and .television 
industry. 
Finally, the petitioner has submitted a "no objection" letter from the Screen Actors Guild-American 
Federation of Television and Radio Artists ("SAG-AFTRA") and an advisory opinion from 
1 of the Alliance of Motion Picture & Television Producers. We acknowledge that these 
letters satisfy the petitioner's obligation to provide written consultations from an appropriate union 
representing the beneficiary's occupational peers and a management organization in the area of the 
beneficiary's extraordinary achievement, as required by section 214(c)(3)(A) of the Act and the 
regulations at 8 C.P.R. §§ 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(D) and 214.2(o)(5)(iii). Consultations are advisory and are 
not binding on USCIS. 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(5)(i)(D). states he has reviewed the 
petition and the documentation submitted in support of the petition, and it is the organization's 
opinion that the beneficiary "has a 
history of extraordinary achievement in this field of endeavor and 
that the prospective services clearly require an individual with this level of professional and artistic 
achievement." 
The petitioner has not submitted evidence that the beneficiary has gained any recognition in her field 
beyond her circle of former co-workers and teachers .. The letters do not demonstrate significant 
recognition outside of that circle consistent· with the accomplishments associated with an alien with 
extraordinary achievement. 
Evidence that the alien has either commanded a · high salary or will command a high 
salary or other substantial remuneration for services in relation to others in the field, as 
evidenced by contracts or other reliable evidence 
The petitioner did not submit any evidence to establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
B. Summary 
In this case, we concur with the director's determination that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate 
the beneficiary's receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that she meets at least three 
of the six categories of evidence that must be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility 
• I • • 
Page 13 
requirements necessary to qualify as an alien with extraordinary achievement in the motion picture 
or television industry. 8 C.F.R. ᤤ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(A) and (B). 
III. Conclusion 
The extraordinary ability provisions of this visa classification are intended to be highly restrictive. See 
137 Cong. Rec. S18247 (daily ed., Nov. 16, 1991). In order to establish eligibility for 0-1 
classification, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary is recognized as outstanding or leading in 
her field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). The beneficiary's critical and commercial achievements 
in the television and motion picture industry have not yet risen to this level. · 
Had the petitioner submitted · the requisite evidence under at le~t three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion,. the next step would be a consideration of the evidence in the 
context of a fmal merits determination. However, as discussed above, the petitioner failed to establish 
eligibility under at least three of. the criteria found under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B). 
The AAO will not conduct a fmal merits determination. 
For the above-stated reasons, the petitioner has not established the benefic~ary' s eligibility pursuant to 
the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B), and the petition may not be approved. 2 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely 
with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has. not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 The AAO maintains de novo review. Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding on 
motion or as a result of litigation, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as the 
official who made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). See also Section l03(a)(l) of the Act; 
Section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. 
§ l03.1(t)(3)(iii)(2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I & N. Dec. 458,460 (BIA 1987)(holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is 
the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).