dismissed O-1B Case: Acting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 15895806 
Appeal of Vermont 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 , an artist representative and production company , seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as an actress in the motion picture or television industry . To do so, the Petitioner seeks 0-1 
nonimmigrant visa classification , available to foreign nationals who can demonstrate a record of 
extraordinary achievement , and whose achievements 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 , as required , the evidentiary criteria applicable to individuals of extraordinary achievement in 
the motion picture or television industry: nomination for or receipt of a significant national or 
international prize or award, or at least three of six possible fonns of documentation . 8 C.F.R . 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(A)-(B) . 
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, with regard to motion picture and television productions, a demonstrated record of extraordinary 
achievements that 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 include the following definition: "Extraordinary achievem ent 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 1s 
recognized as outstanding , notable, or leading in the motion picture or television field ." 
Next, DHS regulations set forth the initial evidentiary criteria for establi shing an individual's record 
of extraordinary achievement. First, a petitioner can demonstrate the beneficiary's nomination for, or 
receipt 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 the 
petitioner does not offer this information, then it must submit sufficient qualifying exhibits that satisfy 
at least three of the six categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(l)-(6). 
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 eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(o)(i) 
of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii), (v).1 
II. ANALYSIS 
Absent evidence of a nomination for or receipt of a significant national or international prize or award, 
the Petitioner seeks to demonstrate the Beneficiary's sustained acclaim and recognition of 
achievements through evidence corresponding to the six evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F .R 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(l)-(6). The Director determined that the Beneficiary did not satisfy any of the 
claimed criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the documentation satisfies six criteria. As 
discussed below, we find that the evidence does not fulfill at least three criteria, as required . 
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. 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(o)(3)(v)(B)(I). 
In regards to the Beneficiary's past services in productions or events, the Petitioner references material 
from the magazines Contigo, Risa, and Quern. However , the Petitioner did not demonstrate how the 
evidence reflects the Beneficiary's services as a lead or starring participant in productions or events. 
Although the documentation briefly mentions her roles in plays and television series, the material from 
Contigo and Risa does not show the Beneficiary's service as a lead or starring participant. 
Specifically, the Contigo article references the Beneficiary as ~I-------~~----.-----
1 I but provides no further material relating to a leading or starring role for the I 
Likewise, the Risa article indicates that ' 
I t but does not establish the prominence of the role to be 
leading or starring for thel I As it relates to Quern, the material consists of two photographs 
of the Beneficiary , including with another actress, but the Petitioner did not demonstrate how the 
photographs show the Beneficiary's services as a lead or starring participant in productions or events. 
Notwithstanding the above, the Petitioner did not establish how the magazine material qualifies as 
"critical reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, publications contracts, or endorsements" 
1 See also Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010), in which we held that, "truth is to be detennined not 
by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality ." 
2 
consistent with this regulatory criterion. Moreover, the Petitioner did demonstrate that the evidence 
shows the distinguished reputation of thq I or any other productions or events. 
In addition the Petitioner ar ues that the Beneficiary participated in a print advertising campaign for 
L--------~~--r----,._...,1 and submits photographs of the Beneficiary and screenshots 
from Wikipedia regarding.__ _ ___. The Wikipedia screenshots, however, relate tq I rather than 
to the specific advertising campaign involving the Beneficiary. Here, the Petitioner did not show that 
the particular! I advertisement generated a distinguished reputation. Without further supporting 
documentation, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the photographs reflect the Beneficiary's 
leading or starring participation for thd I print advertising campaign. 
With re ard to the ros ective element of this criterion, the Petitioner submits a "Deal Memo" between 
and the Beneficiary and screenshots from Y ouTube of an interview between \--------.-------' 
.___---.-__ __.and the Beneficiary. 2 The evidence, however, occurred after the initial filing of the 
pet1t10n. The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit 
have been satisfied from the time of filing and continuing through adjudication. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). Accordingly, we will not consider this evidence. 
In addition, the Petitioner references a previously submitted contract between.__ _______ _ 
and the Beneficiar reflectin that she "will have the lead role in a production that tells 
the story o~------~--------------- .......... Although the evidence 
indicates the Beneficiary's leading role, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the production or 
television series has a distinguished reputation. The evidence, for instance, does not show the 
prestigious nature or eminent standing of the television production. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary meets 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. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(2). 
The Petitioner arres that the Beneficia satisfies this criterion based on her work o~ I, □ 
I __ and as a unionized actress; through testimonial letters; and in 
a music video from.__ _______ ___.band. In order to fulfill this criterion, the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(2) reqmres 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." On appeal, however, 
the Petitioner does not reference "critical reviews or other published materials by or about the individual 
2 In its briet: the Petitioner provides a paitial, unceitified translation of the interview without submitting the original 
transcription. Any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language translation. See 8 
C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3). The translator must ceitity that the English language translation is complete and accurate, and that 
the translator is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. Id. Because the Petitioner did not submit 
an original transcription and a properly certified English language translation of the material, the Petitioner did not show 
that the material is accurate and thus supports its claims. 
3 
in major newspapers, trade journals, magazines, or other publications." Instead, the Petitioner cites to 
documentation confirming her participation and involvement in various events. Without the regulatory 
requirement of evidence of critical reviews or other published materials in major newspapers, trade 
journals, magazines, or other publications, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary meets this 
criterion. 
We note, as discussed under the previous criterion, the Petitioner submitted two articles from Contigo 
and Risa and photographs from Quem. Neither the articles nor the photographs reflect critical reviews of 
the Beneficiary representing national or international recognition for her achievements. The material does 
not show what the Beneficiary achieved through her performances, and the Petitioner did not show how 
two magazine articles and magazine photographs establish that the Beneficiary has received national or 
international recognition. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary fulfills this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed, and will perform, in a lead, starring, or critical 
role/or 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). 
The Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary "s~ several major advertising campaigns" forl • I 
I . IJ 1,1 II II landl__J Theregulationat8C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(3) 
requires "[ e ]vi deuce that the afo~n 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." Although the Petitioner provided still shots 
and photographs of the advertising campaigns, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
performed in a lead, starring, or critical role for organizations or establishments through the required 
evidence of "articles in newspapers, trade journals, publications, or testimonials." Moreover, the 
Petitioner did not explain how participating in advertising campaigns also shows the Benellciary' sl 
leading, starring, or critical roles for the overall organizations or establishments. Further, besides 
the Petitioner did not establish that the organizations and establishments have a distinguished reputation 
through the required regulatory evidence. 
As it relates to the futuristic element, the Petitioner references the "Deal Memo" and Y ouTube 
interview previously discussed. As this evidence occurred after the filing of the initial petition, we 
will not con~hese claims. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l). The Petitioner also argues eligibility 
based on thL_J contract for the Beneficiary to perform in the television series,I I 
However, the Petitioner did not show how the contract qualifies as "articles in newspapers, trade 
journals, publications, or testimonials" consistent with this regulatory criterion. In addition, the Petitioner 
did not demonstrate how performing as an actress in a television series corresponds to her leading, 
starring, or critical role forl I Furthermore, the Petitioner did not establish thatl I enjoys a 
distinguished reputation through the required regulatory evidence. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not show that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
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. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(4). 
The Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary meets this criterion for the first time on appeal based on 
"several major advertising campaigns in Brazil." However, as the Petitioner did not claim the 
Beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion before the Director, either at the time it filed the petition or 
in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), we will not consider this claim in our 
adjudication of this appeal. 3 See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) (providing that 
if "the petitioner was put on notice of the required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to 
provide it for the record before the denial, we will not consider evidence submitted on appeal for any 
purpose" and that "we will adjudicate the appeal based on the record of proceedings" before the Chief); 
see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec 533 (BIA 1988). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary meets the criteria relating to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(])-(4). Although the Petitioner claims the Beneficiary's eligibility for two 
additional criteria on appeal, relating to significant recognition at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(5) and 
high salary at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(6), 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)(v)(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 achievement. 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. 
3 In the RFE, the Director specifically indicated that the Petitioner "did not submit any evidence for this option." In 
response, the Petitioner did not claim the Beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion. 
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