dismissed O-1B Case: Acting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 18645879 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : AUG . 03, 2021 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, an artist representative and production company, seeks to classify the Beneficiary, an 
actress, as an individual of extraordinary achievement in motion picture or television productions. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(O)(i), 8 U.S .C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(O)(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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary met at least three of the six evidentiary criteria . Specifically, 
the Director found that the Petitioner did not satisfy any of the criteria. We dismissed the Petitioner's 
subsequent appeal. 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 conclude that the Petitioner has not met 
that burden . Accordingly, we will dismiss the motion to reconsider. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reconsider must (1) state the reasons for reconsideration and establish that the decision 
was based on an incorrect application of law or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
policy, and (2) establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of 
proceedings at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) limits our authority to reopen or reconsider to instances 
where the Petitioner has shown "proper cause" for that action. Thus, to merit reconsideration, a 
petitioner must not only meet the formal filing requirements (such as submission of a properly 
completed Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the correct fee), but also show proper cause 
for granting the motion . We cannot grant a motion that does not meet applicable requirements. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 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." 
II. 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 
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. Department 
of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations include the following 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 ." 
Next, DHS regulations set forth the evidentiary criteria for establishing 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 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 extraordinary achievement in the motion 
picture and television industry . See section 101(a)(15)(o)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(o)(3)(ii), 
(v).2 
III. ANALYSIS 
The issue before us is whether the Petitioner has established that our decision to dismiss its appeal was 
based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. The Petitioner must specify the factual and 
legal issues raised on appeal that were decided in error or overlooked in our initial decision. 
A. AAO Decision 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not claim the Beneficiary met 
the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(A), and she further found that the Petitioner 
provided evidence relating to five criteria: lead or starring participant in productions or events at 
8 C.F.R . § 214 .2(o)(3)(v)(B)(l), published materials at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(2), lead, starring, 
or critical role for organizations or establishments at 8 C.F.R . § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(3), significant 
recognition for achievements at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(5), and high salary at 8 C.F.R. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(iii). Therefore, the Petitioner's motion does not meet the applicable requirements. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(4) . 
2 See also Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&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 
§ 214.2( o )(3)(v)(B)( 6). The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not satisfy any of those five 
alternative regulatory criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner maintained that the evidence satisfies those 
five criteria, plus an additional criterion relating to major commercial or critically acclaimed successes 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(4). 
In dismissing the appeal, we determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
meets the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(l), 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(2), and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(3)(v)(B)(3). In addition, our decision advised that as the Petitioner did not claim the 
Beneficiary's eligibility for the major commercial or critically acclaimed successes criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)( 4) before the Director, either at the time it filed the petition or in response 
to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), we would not consider this claim in our adjudication of 
the appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 l&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). Further, we reserved a determination on the criteria 
related to significant recognition for achievements 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), as the Petitioner was unable to fulfill at least three criteria. 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). 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that we incorrectly determined that the previously submitted evidence 
was insufficient to satisfy the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(l)-(6). 
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)(l). 
In our appellate decision, we noted that regarding the Beneficiary's past services in productions or 
events, the Petitioner referenced material from the magazines Contigo, Risa, and Quern. However, we 
determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate how the evidence reflects the Beneficiary's services 
as a lead or starring participant in productions or events. We found that, although the documentation 
briefly mentions the Beneficiary's 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 ___________________ but provides 
no further material relating to a leading or starring role for the soap opera. Likewise, the Risa article 
indicates that "[t]he character in the soap oped lwas the culmination of much study and 
dedication" but does not establish the prominence of the role to be leading or starring for the soap 
opera. 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 
forgoing, we found that the Petitioner did not establish how the magazine material qualifies as "critical 
reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, publications contracts, or endorsements " consistent with 
3 
this regulatory criterion. Moreover, we found that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the evidence 
shows the distinguished reputation of thd I soap opera or any other productions or events. 
In addition, our appellate decision noted that the Petitioner also argued eligibility under this criterion 
based u~on the Beneficiary's participation in a print advertising campaign foq I 
~ land submitted photographs of the Beneficiary and screenshots from Wikipedia regarding 
l ______ We noted, the Wikipedia screenshots, however, related tol I rather than to the specific 
advertising campaign involving the Beneficiary . We found that without further supporting 
documentation, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the photographs reflect the Benefi~ 
leading or starring participation for thd I print advertising campaign, or that the particularL__J 
advertisement generated a distinguished reputation. 
On motion, the Petitioner does not identify any specific error of law or policy in our appellate decision 
regarding the Beneficiary 's past services in roductions or events. Instead, the Petitioner asks us to 
consider letters in the record from and regardin~ the Beneficiary's 
acting roles, resrctively[ in a music video fo ____ - , a Ukrainian band, and as~ I 
in the short film The Petitioner did not previously claim eligibility under this criterion based 
on these roles, and it does not argue that we overlooked such a claim in our prior decision. The authors 
of the letters provide insufficient information to show the prominence of the roles to be leading or 
starring for those productions or the distinguished reputations of those productions. Regardless, the 
regulation requires critical reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, publications, contracts, or 
endorsements establishing the Beneficiary 's eligibility under this criterion. Our appellate decision 
found that the Petitioner has not submitted such evidence with respect to the Beneficiary's past 
projects, as previously discussed. 
With regard to the ective element of this criterion, we noted that the Petitioner submitted a "Deal 
Memo" between'""'T------""T"""-~and the Beneficiary and screenshots from Y ouTube of an 
interview between.__ ____ ~and the Beneficiary . 3 This evidence, however, occurred after the 
initial filing of the petition. Accordingly, we did not consider this evidence. On motion, the Petitioner 
maintains that these items satisfy this criterion. It does not acknowledge our determination that it 
cannot rely on the "Deal Memo" and YouTube interview, both of which occurred in 2020, to establish 
the Beneficiary 's eligibility at the time of filing this petition in December 2019. Again, we emphasize 
that a petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been 
satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l); see 
also Matter of Katigbak , 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971). 
Our appellate decision also noted that the Petitioner referenced a previously submitted contract 
3 In our appellate decision we also noted that in its brief, the Petitioner provided a partial, uncertified translation of the 
interview without submittin g the original transcription. We explained that 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 certify that the 
English language translation is complete and accurate, and that the translator is competent to translate from the foreign 
language into English. Id. We found that because the Petitioner did not submit an original transcription and a properly 
certified full English language translation of the material, the Petitioner did not show that the material is accurate and thus 
supports its claims. Although on motion, the Petitioner provides a partial certified translation of the interview and a partial 
original transcription , the Petition has not provided a full English language translation and original transcription of the 
interview. 
4 
between and the BeneficiarY reflecting that she "will have the lead 
role in a production that tells the story o--,__ ______ __, young woman that came from a~ 
family." We found that although the evidence indicates the Beneficiary's leading role, the Petitioner 
did not demonstrate that the production or television series has a distinguished reputation . For 
instance, the evidence does not show the prestigious nature or eminent standing of the television 
production. The Petitioner does not identify any specific error of law or policy in our appellate 
decision relating to the prospective element of this criterion. 
On motion, the Petitioner makes those same arguments it made in its appe11ate brief and restates and 
describes the evidence it submitted under this criterion. The Petitioner, however, does not argue or 
point to how we incorrectly applied law or policy in our prior decision, as required for a motion to 
reconsider. Disagreeing with our conclusions without showing that we erred as a matter of law or 
pointing to policy that contradicts our analysis of the evidence is not a ground to reconsider our 
decision. See Matter ofO-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) (finding that a motion to reconsider 
is not a process by which the party may submit in essence, the same brief and seek reconsideration by 
generally alleging error in the prior decision). Furthermore, our decision analyzed and explained why 
the evidence and arguments addressed in the appeal did not meet the regulatory requirements. Here, 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate that we erred in either misapplying law or policy or failing to address 
prior arguments or evidence. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that our prior determination with respect 
to this criterion was based on a misapplication of law or USCIS policy. 
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). 
Our appellate decision noted that the Petitioner arf ~>I..U.U.U..I'/ satisfies this criterion based 
on her work on I LI _ L--,,-- ............... ,... ___ ___,, as a unionized actress; 
through testimonial letters; and in a music video fro .....,..---,--- We found that the Petitioner did not 
reference "critical reviews or other published materials by or about the individual in major newspapers, 
trade journals, magazines , or other publications." Instead, the Petitioner cited to documentation 
confirming the Beneficiary's participation and involvement in various events. We concluded that 
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 noted, regarding the aforementioned two articles from Contigo 
and Risa and photographs from Quern, that neither the articles nor the photographs reflect critical 
reviews of the Beneficiary representing national or international recognition for her achievements. 
We found that the material does not show what the Beneficiary achieved through her performances, 
and the Petitioner did not show how the two magazine articles and magazine photographs establish 
that the Beneficiary has received national or international recognition. On motion, although the 
Petitioner states the identical claims it made in its appellate brief, it has not shown that our 
determination for this criterion was incorrect. 
5 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that we misapplied the law or USCIS 
policy in concluding that it did not meet this criterion or that our decision was incorrect based on the 
evidence in the record at the time of our decision. 
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. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(3). 
In our appellate decision, we addressed the Petitioner's argument that the Benefyiary "Yarred in 
several major advertising campaigns" for! 11 II 11 ID, andD 
c=]we found that, 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." We determined, moreover, that the 
Petitioner did not explain how participating in advertising campaigns also shows the Beneficiary's 
leading, starring, or critical roles for the overall organizations or establishments. We further concluded 
that, besides! I the Petitioner did not establish that the organizations and establishments have a 
distinguished reputation through the required regulatory evidence . 
As it relates to the prospective element of this criterion, although our prior decision noted that the 
Petitioner referenced the "Deal Memo" and Y ouTube interview previously discussed, we found that 
as this evidence occurred after the filing of the initial petition, we would not consider these claims . 
On motion, the Petitioner maintains that these items satisfy this criterion. However, it does not 
acknowledge our determination that it cannot rely on the "Deal Memo" and Y ouTube interview, both 
of which occurred in 2020, to establish the Beneficiary's eligibility at the time of filing this petition in 
December 2019. Again, we emphasize that a petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements 
for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through 
adjudication . 8 C.F.R . § 103.2(b)(l); see also Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&NDec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971). 
Our appellate decision noted that the Petitioner also asserted eligibility based on thd !contract for 
the Beneficiary to perform in the television seriesJ I We found, however, that 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, we determined that 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate how the Beneficiary's performance as an actress in a television 
series corresponds to her leasing, rarring, or critical role forl I We further found that the 
Petitioner did not establish tha enjoys a distinguished reputation through the required regulatory 
evidence . 
On motion, the Petitioner the has not demonstrated that we erred in either misapplying law or policy 
or failing to address prior arguments or evidence in our determination that the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated, by articles in newspapers, trade journals, publications, or testimonials, that the 
Beneficiary has performed and will perform, in a lead, starring, or critical role for the aforementioned 
establishments or their distinguished reputation . For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not 
established that our prior determination with respect to this criterion was based on a misapplication of 
law or USCIS policy. 
6 
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). 
On motion, the Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary meets this criterion based on "several major 
advertising campaigns inl I" However, it does not acknowledge our prior determination not to 
consider this claim in our adjudication of the appeal, 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). 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). 4 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that our previous 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. Accordingly, the motion to reconsider will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
4 As the Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria, we reserve a determination on the 
remaining two criteria. See Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 25-26 (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, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
7