dismissed O-1B Case: Acting

(b)(6)
DATE: JAN 2 0 2015 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S .. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washing:ton. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
e.� 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www .uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. We will dismiss the 
appeal. 
The petitioner, acting as an agent, seeks to classify the beneficiary as an 0-lB nonimmigrant 
pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
1101(a)(15)(0)(i), as an alien with extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or television 
industry. 
After issuing a request for evidence and then considering the evidence of record, the director denied the 
petition, finding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary qualifies as an alien with 
extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or television industry. The director determined that the 
petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary meets the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R . 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(A), and that the submitted evidence only satisfied one of the six evidentiary criteria set 
forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B), of which the petitioner must meet three to establish the 
beneficiary's eligibility. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief which generally asserts that the director erred based upon a 
"misapplication of the legal standard for 0-1 artists found at 8 C. F.R . [§] 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B) and its 
failure to fully recognize the finite field of endeavor," without providing any evidence to support 
such claims or addressing any of the evidentiary criteria. As will be discussed below, the petitioner 
initially claimed that the beneficiary is an alien with extraordinary achievement in the motion picture 
or television industry, not an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. For the reasons discussed 
below, we will uphold the director's decision and dismiss the appeal. 
I. The Law 
Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i), provides classification to a qualified 
alien who has, with regard 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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) provides the following pertinent definition: 
Extraordinary achievement with respect to motion picture and television productions, 
as commonly defined 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.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v) states, in pertinent part, that: 
Evidentiary criteria for an 0-1 alien of extraordinary achievement in the motion picture 
or television industry.· To qualify as an alien of extraordinary achievement in the motion 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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 Ernrny, a Grarnrny, 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 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; or 
(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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
Additionally, the regulation at 8 C. F.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 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. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C. F.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 
or activities, and an itinerary. The petitioner must also submit two consultations, one from an 
appropriate union and one from an appropriate management organization. 8 C. F.R. § 214.2(o)(5)(iii). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria does not, in and of itself, establish 
eligibility for 0-1 classification. 59 Fed. Reg. 41818, 418 20 (Aug. 15, 1994). We have held that the 
"truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. " Thus, in 
adjudicating the petition pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence standard, USCIS must 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true. " Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. Discussion 
A. The Beneficiary's Field 
As previously stated, on appeal, the petitioner generally asserts that the director did not "fully recognize 
the finite field of endeavor (Experimental/Independent Acting in the Media of Stage and Screen) 
[which] resulted in an erroneous decision " and that the director "misappli[ed] [] the legal standard for 
0-1 artists found at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). " The petitioner is requesting classification for the 
beneficiary as an alien of extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or television industry. The 
director appropriately reviewed the petition according to the classification requested on the 0 and P 
Classifications Supplement to Form I-1 29. Regardless, the evidentiary criteria at 8 C. F.R. § 
214. 2(o)(3)(iv) and (v) are identical. 
The petitioner does not provide an example of how the director's conclusions were incorrect or would 
have been different if the beneficiary's field were limited to the more finite field of 
"experimental/independent acting " or even demonstrate that the director did not consider the 
beneficiary's role in experimental and independent productions. Regardless of whether the beneficiary's 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
field is limited to such a finite field, the petitioner must still satisfy the evidentiary requirements at either 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(A) or (B). 
B. The Evidentiary Criteria 
The petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary meets the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F. R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(A). Thus, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary meets at least three of the 
evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B). In denying the petition, the director determined 
that, based upon the submitted evidence, the petitioner established that the beneficiary met the criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(5). Regarding the criteria at 8 C. F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(l)-(3), the 
director thoroughly discussed the submitted evidence and found that the petitioner did not establish 
that the beneficiary met these criteria. The director also found that the petitioner had not claimed 
that the beneficiary meets the criteria at 8 C. F.R § 214. 2(o)(3)(v)(B)(4) or (6). As previously stated, 
the petitioner does not contest the findings of the director for any of the evidentiary criteria on 
appeal. Instead, the petitioner suggests the director reached an erroneous conclusion by not taking 
into account the beneficiary's "finite field of endeavor (Experimental/Independent Acting in the 
Media of Stage and Screen). " Essentially, the petitioner requests that we reconsider the director's 
decision based on a vague assertion that the director "misappli[ ed] [] the legal standard for 0-1 
artists found at 8 C.F.R. § 214. 2(o)(3)(iv)(B), " rather than the legal standard for aliens of 
extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or television industry, the requested classification. 
A review of the director's decision reveals that the director addressed each criterion and the 
submitted . evidence at length. For example, in discussing the criterion at 8 C. F.R 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(l), the director found that while the petitioner had established the beneficiary's 
past lead or starring roles, the petitioner had not established the distinguished reputation of the 
productions. In addition, the director found that the petitioner had not established 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 required by the plain language of the criterion. 
Regarding the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(2), the director found that "the published 
materials and reviews are from local publications with [a] limited scope and audience .. . [and] 
[t]hus ... do not establish that the beneficiary has achieved national or international recognition, " as 
required by the plain language of the regulation. 
The petitioner has not explained on appeal how any of the director's analyses demonstrate that the 
director did not "fully recognize the finite field of endeavor. " For example, the petitioner does not 
assert or document that the publications and websites that featured reviews of the beneficiary's work 
or listed it among other ongoing _Qroductions, including 
www 
have a wider audience than the director 
stated or are otherwise indicative of national or international recognition within the experimental 
theater/independent film industry for achievements as required under 8 C.F.R § 214.2(o )(3)(v)(2). 
Similarly, the petitioner has not specifically addressed the director's conclusion that the petitioner 
had not demonstrated how the beneficiary's work on various productions impacted the relevant 
venues, such as consistent with a lead, starring or critical role for an 
organization or establishment. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
If it is the petitioner's position that the director's analysis must be in the context of "the finite field 
of endeavor," it is still the petitioner's burden to submit independent, objective evidence that the 
shows for which the beneficiary held a lead or starring role enjoy a distinguished reputation; that the 
roles the beneficiary performed were lead, starring, or critical for organizations and establishments 
with a distinguished reputation; and that she achieved national or international recognition for her 
achievements among critics of independent and experimental productions. Ultimately, after careful 
review of the entire record, we conclude that the record supports the director's ultimate finding that the 
petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary meets at least three of the criteria at 8 C.P. R 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B) and the reasoning underlying that finding. 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under 8 C.P. R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(A) or at least three criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B). Consequently, the 
petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is eligible for classification as an alien with 
extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or television industry. Therefore, the petition may not 
be approved. 
III. Conclusion 
The petitioner has not established the beneficiary's eligibility by demonstrating that the beneficiary 
meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.P. R. § 214. 2( o )(3)(v)(B). In addition, the evidence 
in the aggregate does not establish that the beneficiary has a degree of skill and recognition 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered to the extent that she is recognized as outstanding, 
notable, or leading in the motion picture or television field. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition 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; Matter of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.