dismissed O-1B Case: Acting

.
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-A-T-A-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 15, 2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, 1 a talent agency, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as a foreign national of 
extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or television productions. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(0)(i) , 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i). This 0-1 
classification makes nonimmigrant visas available to foreign nationals whose achievements in this 
industry have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary met at least three of the six regulatory criteria. 
Specifically, the Director found that the Petitioner had satisfied only one criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Beneficiary meets two 
additional criteria and has a record of extraordinary achievement. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 101(a)(l5)(0)(i) of the Act provides classification to a qualified beneficiary 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) clarifies , in pertinent part: 
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 
1 
While the Petitioner listed its name as on the petition and that name appears on its 
letterhead , its legal name appears to be See California Secretary of State Business Search , 
https ://businesssearch .sos.ca.gov/CBS /Detail (accessed on August I 0, 20 17). 
Matter of C-A-T-A-
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) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can 
demonstrate the beneficiary's recognition in the field through documentation that the beneficiary has 
been nominated for, or is 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. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(A). If a petitioner does not provide this information, then it must satisfy at 
least three ofthe six categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(l)-(6). 
The submission of documents relating to at least three criteria does not, in and of itself: establish 
eligibility for 0-1 classification. See 59 Fed. Reg. 41818, 41820 (Aug. 15. 1994 ). In addition, we 
have held that, "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality:· 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 201 0). That decision explains that, pursuant to 
the preponderance of the evidence standard, we "'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." !d. Accordingly, where a 
petitioner provides qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of the record shows eligibility under section 1 01(a)(l5)(0)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(1)(ii). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Beneficiary is an actor, for whom the Petitioner filed the petition as an agent who seeks to 
represent him. It does not assert, nor does the record reflect, that he has been nominated for, or is the 
recipient of: significant national or international awards or prizes in his particular field. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(A). Accordingly, the Petitioner must satisfy at least three of the six regulatory 
criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(/)-(6). The Director found that the Beneficiary has 
received significant recognition for achievements from organizations, critics, government agencies, 
or other recognized experts in the field in which he is engaged, and thus. he satisfies the criterion 
under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(5). The record contains favorable testimonials supporting that 
determination. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that because the Beneficiary has received recogmtwn for 
achievements, he must therefore meet the two criteria relating to the nature of his roles. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(l), (3). While evidence may relate to more than one criterion. each criterion has 
its own requirements and we will not presume that satisfying one criterion necessarily demonstrates 
that a beneficiary meets another criterion. We address below those criteria that the Petitioner has 
advanced or for which it has presented relevant material, and conclude that it has not met its burden. 
2 
.
Matter of C-A-T-A-
Evidence that the alien has performed. and 1-vill perfimn. services as a lead or starring 
participant in productions or events which have a distinguished reputation as evidenced hy 
critical reviews, advertisements. publicity releases. publications contracts. or endorsements. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(J). 
The Director determined that the Beneficiary has previously performed in a qualifying role for a 
production or event with the necessary reputation. She, however, concluded that the Petitioner had 
not offered the type of evidence specified in the regulation to show that the productions or events for 
which the Beneficiary will perform services as a lead or starring participant enjoy a distinguished 
reputation. On appeal, the Petitioner notes that it previously submitted several "deal memos" for 
upcoming productions in which the Beneficiary would perform as a lead actor, but focuses on one 
deal memo that postdates 
the filing ofthe petition. We will consider all of the upcoming productions 
below. 
The initial deal memos for and ' ' later 
changed to ' ' do not corroborate that the Beneficiary will perform services for a production or 
event with a distinguished reputation. chief executive officer of IS 
the creator and producer of the first film. The record contains no information about 
or 
is producing the second movie, which will direct. 
The record does contain publicity materials for · While the documents confirm that the 
Beneficiary will perform as a lead or starring pmiicipant in the movie , they do not contain 
intom1ation suggesting the film has or is expected to have a distinguished reputation. For example, 
they do not remark on the past successes of the director , production company, or actors, or otherwise 
remark on the pre-release expectations tor the film. is the director of'· "which 
won at the and 
which won at the His 
page lists other film festival honors. The record, however, includes no 
evidence about the prestige of these events or his recognition in general that might support a finding 
that his future projects are anticipated at such a level that they can be said to enjoy a distinguished 
reputation . 
The Petitioner's subsequent submissions also do not confirm the reputation of · 
First, the deal memo tor this project is dated after the tiling of the 
petition. The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit 
have been satisfied from the. time of the tiling and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2(b )(I). Regardless, the record lacks evidence of the reputation of the ti lm or those associated 
with it. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the certificate from the 
and documentation from the 
"show the distinguished reputation of the film." 
that the production company completed, however, does not contain 
information suggesting that obtaining signature producer status from involves any 
.
Matter of C-A-T-A-
assessment by that organization beyond completion of the necessary paperwork. Notably. the form 
indicates that there was no licensing or distribution agreement for the project yet. Similarly, while 
the issued a "Documentation of Registration'' for the material, the 
Petitioner has not verified that such registration involves an evaluation of the quality of the script 
rather than a registry of original work for protection from unauthorized usage. For all of the above 
reasons, it has not demonstrated that the productions and events for which the Beneficiary will 
participate in a lead or starring role enjoy a distinguished reputation. 
Evidence that the alien has performed. and will per.fimn. in a lead. starring. or critical role fhr 
organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation evidenced hy articles in 
newspapers, trade journals. publications. or testimonials. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(3). 
The record supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner has not sufficiently documented 
or explained how the Beneficiary would perform in a lead, starring, or critical role for an 
organization or establishment. The appeal focuses on his participation in productions and events. 
This criterion, however, is separate from the previously discussed one requiring evidence of his 
performance of services as a lead or starring participant in a production or event. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(l). Accordingly, participating at the requisite level.fhr a production or event is 
not necessarily the same as performing in a qualifying role fhr an organization or establishment. 
Even if we were to conclude that reputation corroborates that ·· will be a 
production with a distinguished reputation, the record does not verify that the Beneficiary's lead or 
starring participation in the movie constitutes a lead, starring, or critical role for the production 
company. For example, the Petitioner did not illustrate that he will perform in a significant number 
of films or that the company has prominently featured its affiliation with 
him either 
as part of its promotional campaign or to obtain funding. Similarly, the Petitioner has not 
adequately shown that the Beneficiary has performed in a lead, starring, or critical role for the 
businesses whose products he has advertised. He also has not sufficiently demonstrated a qualifying 
role with the production companies of the films in which he appeared or tor which he coordinated 
stunts. For all of the above reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary satisfies at least three of the six regulatory 
criteria to show extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or television productions. 
Accordingly, it has not submitted the requisite initial evidence for the classification sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter l~(C-A-T-A-, ID# 478483 (AAO Aug. 15, 2017) 
4