dismissed O-1B Case: Acting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 15919498 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 5, 2021 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, a talent representative and media business, seeks to extend the Beneficiary's 
classification as an 0-1 nonimmigrant, a visa 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. 1 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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish that the Beneficiary satisfied the initial evidentiary criteria applicable to individuals of 
extraordinary ability in the arts: nomination for or receipt of a significant national or international 
award, or at least three of six possible forms of documentation. 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
As relevant here, section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Act establishes 0-1 classification for an individual who 
has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which 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 work 
in the area of extraordinary ability. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations define 
"extraordinary ability in the field of arts" as "distinction," and "distinction" as "a high level of 
achievement in the field of arts evidenced by a degree of skill and recognition substantially above that 
ordinarily encountered to the extent that a person described as prominent is renowned, leading, or well­
known in the field of arts." See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(ii). 
Next, DHS regulations set forth alternative initial evidentiary criteria for establishing a beneficiary's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of achievements. A petitioner may submit evidence either of 
nomination for or receipt of"significant national or international awards or prizes" such as "an Academy 
1 Sed._ _____ __,lwith a validity period of December 4, 2017 to June 15, 2020. 
Award, an Emmy, a Grammy, or a Director's Guild Award," or at least three of six listed categories of 
documents. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A)-(B). 
The submission of documents satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for 0-1 classification. See 59 Fed. Reg. 41818, 41820 (Aug. 15, 1994) ("The 
evidence submitted by the petitioner is not the standard for the classification, but merely the 
mechanism to establish whether the standard has been met."). Accordingly, where a petitioner 
provides qualifying evidence satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of the record and the quality of the evidence shows extraordinary ability in the arts. See section 
10l(a)(15)(o)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii), (iv).2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary has been 
nominated for, or has been the recipient o±: significant national or international awards or prizes under 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A). In addition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish 
the Beneficiary's eligibility for any of the evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(l)­
(6). On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary satisfies four criteria. For the reasons 
discussed below, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary meets at least three of the 
evidentiary categories. 
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. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5). 
The Petitioner contends: 
[I]t is undeniably an achievement to be the star of several distinguished productions on 
behalf of distinguished organizations. All of the testimonial letters confirmed that [the 
Beneficiary] did more than simply perform in the field. The letters confirmed that but 
for [the Beneficiary's] starring presence in each of her plays, the productions would 
not have received such high levels of critical acclaim. 
The letters highlight these successes as major achievements because they are 
objectively major achievements. Arguably such achievements are far more impressive 
and meaningful because numerous influential and renowned people in her field confirm 
that she was [an] absolutely necessary component of the productions' success. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5) requires "[e]vidence 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." On appeal, the Petitioner does not 
2 See also Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010), in which we held that, ·'truth is to be determined not 
by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality." 
2 
specifically identify which evidence supports its assertions. Nonetheless, at initial filing and in 
response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided approximately a dozen 
testimonial letters. However, the letters do not contain specific, detailed information explaining the 
recognition and identifying the Beneficiary's achievements. 
For example,I I indicated that he witnessed the Beneficiary perform in._l ____ __. 
where he "observed a dedicated approach to acting that showed nuance, innate sensibility, and star 
quality." 3 However, I I did not elaborate and explain how her acting skills and 
characteristics received significant recognition or identified any achievements she received from 
performing inll Also,I I opined that the Beneficiary's "training and 
experience i~eatre is rare," and "[ s ]he brings a unique perspective, exceptional talent, and 
a solid track record of devising and producing which is extremely valuable." HereJ I 
did not make any claims regarding the Beneficiary's recognition for achievements, nor did she explain. 
how the Beneficiary's experience, talent, and skills garnered her significant recognition. 
I I stated that the Beneficiary "has worked on plays such as I I and 
I al which were both impactful performances and received a great deal of acclaim withiti the 
theatre industry." Although! I claimed that the Beneficiary "received a great deal of 
acclaim," he did not further discuss and identify the acclaim she received to show that she garnered 
significant recognition for her achievements consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
Likewise! I indicated that the Beneficiary performed in the play,I land she 
"was absolutely crucial to the show and her performances won over audiences." I I did not 
expand upon her opinion of the Beneficiary's winning over audiences and did not show that she 
received significant recognition. 
In additionJ lstated that the Beneficia 's "work in on behalf of .... l ___ __. 
and in I Ion behalf ofL...-____ ____,,-----,___Jreceived a great deal of acclaim and 
media attention from various publications." Here,.__ __ ____, did not identify the acclaim or provide 
examples of the media attention in establishing that the Beneficiary garnered significant recognition 
for her achievements. 
Further, whilel I indicated that the production ofl I "received a great deal of 
acclaim and media covera e when we sta ed it at I I' "[ s ]he starred in 
I I a that was covered by numerous major media publications, 
including the~ ___ ___. and "[ s ]he also. starred in I t I I and various 
other productions that received a great deal of acclaim and media attention," the let.ter did not indicate 
any acclaim or media attention that the Beneficiary received from her performances, reflecting 
significant recognition for her achievements. 
Moreover, I I generally stated that the Beneficiary's "performances received 
overwhelmingly positive praises from critics and the general public alike and would not have been 
acclaimed had [the Beneficiary] not starred in the productions." I I however, did not 
3 Although we discuss a sampling ofletters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
identify the critics or positive praises to demonstrate significant recognition received by the 
Beneficiary. 
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. Here, the letters make broad, general statements without specifying how the Beneficiary 
garnered significant recognition for her achievements in the field. Without detailed, probative 
information explaining the significant recognition the Beneficiary received for her achievements, the 
Petitioner did not provide sufficient testimonial letters. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
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. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(6). 
The Petitioner argues that '[t ]he combined averages of her contracts firmly places [ the Beneficiary] within 
the top 10th percentile illuminated within the USCIS denial letter" and "the USCIS must also take into 
consideration 'average salary,' which provides the necessary context to properly gauge whether the 
beneficiary's earnings are evidence of high salary compared to the majority of others in her field." 
The record reflects that the Petitioner did not initially claim the Beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner provided excerpts from three "deal memos." However, 
two of the deal memos are dated after the filing of petition; therefore, they will not be considered. The 
Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied 
from the time of the filing and through and continuing through adjudication. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
The third memo, dated March 2000 froml I shows that the Petitioner will be 
paid "$45/hour for Professional Development and Research, $35 per hour for every rehearsal and $225 
per show for every tour stop with the Company," and the Beneficiary "will be available as needed 
intermittently between August 30, 2020 and August 15, 2023." The Petitioner also submitted a screenshot 
from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for theatre actors reflecting $28,800 average annual salary and 
$60,000 average annual salary in the 75th percentile. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(6) requires "[e]vidence 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 
indicated in the documentation that "at $35/hour at five days a week, [the Beneficiary] would earn $1,400 
per week or $72,800 annually." However, the $35/hour rate, as indicated in the deal memo, relates to 
rehearsal. Here, the Petitioner projected that the Beneficiary would rehearse 40 hours a week for an entire 
year; the deal memo does not indicate that the Beneficiary will be exclusively rehearsing for the play. 
In addition, as the Petitioner used comparative annual salary data, it did not demonstrate what the 
Beneficiary be earning annually froml I According to the deal memo, the 
Beneficiary "will be available as needed intermittently," indicating that she will not be working 40 hours 
per week for an entire year, and therefore, not earning $72,800. Further, the Petitioner did not provide 
the estimated hours that the Beneficiary will work in "Professional Development and Research" and 
4 
rehearsal and how many estimated shows for every tour stop that she will perform for the company. In 
addition, the Petitioner did not include evidence showing what other theater actors earn for professional 
development and research, rehearsals, and shows. 
Although the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary would earn $72,800, the offered evidence does not 
support that assertion. As such, the Petitioner did not establish that the comparative annual salary data 
reflects her high salary. Moreover, the Petitioner did not show that earning $45 for professional 
development and research, $35 for rehearsal, and $225 per show represents a high salary or substantial 
remuneration in relation to other theater actors. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary meets the criteria relating to significant 
recognition for achievements and high salary. Although the Petitioner claims the Beneficiary's 
eligibility for two additional criteria on appeal, relating to lead or starring participant in productions 
or events at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(I) and lead, starring, or critical role for organizations and 
establishments at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(3), we need not reach these additional grounds. As 
the Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B), we reserve these issues. 4 Consequently, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the 
Beneficiary's eligibility for the 0-1 visa classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. The 
appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 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); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, n.7 
( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
5