dismissed O-1B Case: Acting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10818999 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 19, 2020 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, a production company, seeks to classify the Beneficiary, an actor, as an individual with a 
demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or television industry. To do 
so, the Petitioner seeks 0-1 nonimmigrant classification, available to foreign nationals whose 
achievements in this industry have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(O)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(O)(i). 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
satisfy any of the six initial evidentiary criteria, of which it must meet at least three. The Director also 
determined that the Petitioner did not submit the required written consultations from an appropriate labor 
union and management organization and did not provide the beginning and ending dates for the 
Beneficiary's activities or the specific locations of those activities. We dismissed the Petitioner's 
appeal from that decision. The matter is now before us on 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, we will dismiss the motion. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The requirements of a 
motion to reconsider are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 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. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
We do not consider new facts or evidence in a motion to reconsider. We may grant a motion that 
satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit.1 
1 The Petitioner did not include the required "statement about whether or not the validity of the unfavorable decision has 
been or is the subject of any judicial proceeding and, if so, the court, nature, date, and status or result of the proceeding." 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iii). A motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
II. ANALYSIS 
In dismissing the appeal, we determined that the Petitioner did not meet at least three of the initial 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B). In addition, we concluded that the Petitioner has 
not satisfied the written consultation requirements, pursuant to section 214(c)(3)(A) of the Act and the 
regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(D) and 214.2(o)(5)(iii). We also determined the Petitioner did 
not provide the beginning and ending dates for the Beneficiary's activities or the specific locations of 
those activities, required evidence in all 0-1 visa petitions. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(C). Further, we 
found that the documentation submitted did not provide the contractual agreement by which the 
Petitioner will employ the beneficiary that specifies the wage and the other terms and conditions of 
the Beneficiary's employment, or a summary of the terms of the oral agreement between the parties. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(B). 
On motion, the Petitioner maintains that it meets four criteria, but it does not specifically address our 
findings under the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(1)-(3) and (5). Instead, in an 
accompanying letter, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not thoroughly review the record and 
erred in determining that the documentation submitted does not satisfy at least three of the initial 
evidentiary criteria. It requests that we "review more carefully and look to all the details in this 
application .. . and paperwork submitted." It provides documentation previously submitted and 
considered in our appellate decision. The Petitioner has also included new evidence with its motion 
to reconsider, although its motion brief does not indicate which criteria this evidence is intended to 
support. However, as noted above, we do not consider new facts or evidence in a motion to reconsider. 
Here, the Petitioner's contentions pertain to the Director's decision, and therefore do not show how 
our dismissal of its appeal was incorrect as a matter of law or policy. Regardless, the Petitioner does 
not discuss or point to any specific examples of how the Director did not "take the time to look through 
the paperwork" and a review of the decision reveals that the Director conducted a though review of 
the evidence and provided ample support for the conclusions reached regarding the Petitioner's 
eligibility, based on the evidence of record. 
Regarding the criterion relating to lead or starring role in productions or events at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(1), in our appellate decision we determined that although the record reflec~ 
the Beneficiary has performed in a lead or starring role in the short films I I L_J 
I l and I I the Petitioner had not submitted, as required, critical reviews, 
advertisements, publicity releases, publications, contracts, or endorsements to establish that the 
productions themselves have a distinguished reputation. While we acknowledged that the record 
contained publicitY. releases submitted from Pais and the Cinematography Directorate of the Ministry 
of Culture of I I announcing the premiere of I I on the website 
www.sinemocionpelicula.com, we concluded those materials do not establish the distinguished 
reputation ofl I rather, they reflect that the film had recently premiered. The Petitioner does 
not specifically address our conclusions regarding this criterion and does not direct to a particular law, 
regulation, or policy that specifically shows that we erred in our determinations. Disagreeing with our 
conclusions without establishing that we erred as a matter of law or policy or pointing to precedent 
decisions that contradict our analysis of the evidence is not a ground to reconsider our decision. See 
Matter of O-S-G-, 24 l&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) (finding that a motion to reconsider is not a process 
2 
by which the party may submit, in essence, the same brief and seek reconsideration by generally 
alleging error in the prior decision). The Petitioner has not shown how we erred in determining that 
the record does not establish that those productions have a distinguished reputation. 
In addition, our appellate decision concluded that althou~h the record reflects that the BeneficiarY. will 
~m as an actor in the Petitioner's upcominl films 11 land D 
L__J and in the TV miniseries! the record, when viewed in its totality, does not 
establish the Beneficiary's proposed role as leading or starring within the company's upcoming 
productions. We noted that while the record reflected that the Beneficiary "will have a supporting 
main role" inl I and "a main role" in I I the Petitioner had not provided 
information regarding those proposed roles and other events. 
Our appellate decision also determined that the documentation submitted does not establish that the 
upcoming films or TV miniseries are a production or event that enjoys a distinguished reputation, as 
evidenced by critical reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, publications, contracts, or 
endorsements. Our rior decision indicated that at the time the petition was filed it appears that the 
project! was in its nascent stages. We also noted that it is not unusual for a distinguished 
motion picture or television production to generate press within the industry during pre-production, 
such as when it casts lead roles or hires a director. We determined that although the record on appeal 
demonstrated that the Petitioner will produce! I and I I and possibly 
distribute I I it did not establish the distinguished reputation of the projects themselves. 
We further found that the Petitioner had not provided documentary evidence showing that it has been 
associated with distin uished roductions in the past. The Petitioner's support letter indicated that its 
owne has produced the short films I I l ID I I,~----~ nd I I, and information provided from www.imdb.com about some 
of those productions confirmed their release. We could not conclude, however, based on the limited 
evidence submitted, that the Petitioner is of such renown that any project it considers placing into 
development can also be considered to have a distinguished reputation. On motion, the Petitioner 
asserts that "[o]ur films are now on Amazon Prime and all of our projects are starting to [be] picked 
by different channels all over the world." Without evidence, in the form required. establishinj that the 
upcoming productions I 11 11 I and I have a 
distinguished reputation, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that it meets this criterion. 
Regarding the published material criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(2), in our prior decision, 
we concluded that, although the Petitioner provided the aforementioned publicity releases from Pais 
and the Cinematography Directorate of the Ministry of Culture ofl I announcing the premiere 
ofl ~ on the website www.sinemocionpelicula.com, those press releases, which mention that 
the Beneficiary is the star of the film, are about the film's premiere, not about the Beneficiary. We 
further determined that the publicity releases do not recognize the Beneficiary's individual 
achievements in the motion picture industry as a film actor or the national/international recognition he 
received for such achievements. The press release from Pais mentions that the Beneficiary is a "rookie 
actor" in his "first film," rather than a film actor who is already nationally recognized for his 
achievements in the field. We further concluded that the Petitioner did not provide documentation 
demonstrating that those publications are considered major newspapers, trade journals, magazines, or 
other major media. The Petitioner has not shown that our determination for this criterion was incorrect. 
3 
In reference to the lead, starring, or critical role for organizations and establishments criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(3), our appellate decision noted that the Petitioner claimed that the 
Beneficiary satisfies this criterion based upon his past roles in film productions. We noted that the 
fact that the Beneficiary may have played a leading role in some of those productions is not sufficient 
to satisfy this criterion's requirements. We concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate how 
such productions qualify as organizations, or that the Beneficiary played a lead, starring or critical role 
for the production companies of any of those productions. In addition, we determined that the record 
does not provide background information or documentation regarding those production companies 
establishing the reputation of those organizations. While the record contains some background 
jnformatjJf an the Petjtjnrr, indicating it is the production company tori 11 I 
I ....._ ___ ____., and I I it did not provide independent evidence to establish that 
it has a distinguished reputation, and the testimonial letters submitted do not address the Petitioner's 
reputation. Our appellate decision also noted that the Petitioner must also establish that the Beneficiary 
will prospectively provide services in a lead, starring, or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. We noted that while the record indicates that the 
Beneficiary will perform as an actor in the Petitioner's upcoming films I I I I andl I and in the TV miniseries! I, the submitted evidence does 
not describe how he will contribute to the petitioning company as a whole, or how his position fits 
within the overall hierarchy of the company. Further, as previously mentioned, the Petitioner did not 
provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it enjoys a distinguished reputation. The Petitioner 
does not identify any specific error of law or policy in our appellate decision relating to this criterion. 
In reference to the significant recognition for achievements criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(5), our appellate decision noted that the Petitioner provided several 
recommendation letters in support of this criterion, describing the Beneficiary as "an extraordinary 
actor" of "great presence," 'great qualities," and "dominating charm," "an inspiring fellow actor and 
a strong talent with a magnetic presence," an individual of "grand acting capacity in the area of cinema 
and television," and "an exceptional dramatic and film actor." A letter from I I the 
executive director of thel I asserts that the Beneficiary 
"has demonstrated a record of extraordinary achievement since his involvement with the film and TV 
in I I since 2013," and cites as examples the Beneficiary's roles inl land □ 
I I In our appellate decision we determined that the letters did not explain in factual 
terms the Beneficiary's achievements in the field. We noted that the issue for this regulatory criterion 
is whether the Beneficiary has received significant recognition for achievements from organizations, 
critics, government agencies, or other recognized experts in the field, and found that the record lacks 
documentary evidence showing that the Beneficiary has received such recognition. The Petitioner has 
not shown that our determination for this criterion was incorrect. 
Finally, the motion does not address our prior determination that the Petitioner has not provided the 
required written consultations, the beginning and ending dates for the Beneficiary's activities or the 
specific locations of those activities, and the contractual agreement by which the Petitioner will 
employ the Beneficiary that specifies the wage and the other terms and conditions of his employment 
or a summary of the terms of the oral agreement between the parties. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
shown that our determination on these matters was incorrect. 
4 
111. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the assertions made by the Petitioner on motion do not establish that 
our previous decision was grounded in an incorrect application of law or policy, nor does the motion 
demonstrate that our decision was incorrect based on the evidence before us at the time of the decision. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not met the requirements of a motion to reconsider. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
5