dismissed O-1B Case: Acting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 20204589 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR . 24 , 2022 
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 101(a)(15)(O)(i) , 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(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, and we dismissed the appeal. 
Subsequently, we dismissed a motion to reconsider. 1 The matter is now before us on a second 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 
As relevant here, section 1 0l(aX15)(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 areaofextraordinaryability. Department 
of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations include the following definition: "Extraordinary achievement 
with respectto 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 
1 See lnRe: 18645879(AUG .03,2021). 
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 5 9 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 
Further, 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 may grant a motion that satisfies these 
requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Procedural History 
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 although the 
Petitioner provided evidence relating to five alternative regulatory criteria, 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(3 )(v)(B)(l), (2), (3), (5), and ( 6), the Petitioner did not satisfy any of those five 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 at 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)-(3). In addition, our decision advised that as the 
Petitioner did not claim the Beneficiary's eligibility for the criterion at8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0 )(3)(v)(BX4) 
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. 3 Further, we 
reserved a determination on the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3 )(v)(B)(5) and ( 6), as the Petitioner 
was unable to fulfill at least three criteria. 4 On motion, the Petitioner requested us to reconsider our 
decision without showing how we erroneously applied law or policy. For the reasons discussed below, 
the Petitioner's current motion to reconsider does not overcome our prior decision. 
2 SeealsoMatterofChawathe , 25 I&NDec. 369, 376(AAO2010), in which we held that , "trnth is to be dete1minednot 
by the quantity of evidencealonebutby its quality." 
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 opp01tunityto provide it for the record before the denial, we will not consider 
evidence submitted on appeal foranypurpose" and that "we will adjudicate the appeal based on the record of proceedings" 
before the Chief); seealsoMatterofObaigbena, 19l&NDec 533 (BIA 1988). 
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). 
2 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
As stated, a motion to reconsider must establish that our prior 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 
proceeding at the time of the decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 103 .5(a)(3). On motion, the Petitioner submits 
a brief in which it makes the same arguments it made in its prior motion brief and restates and describes 
the evidence it submitted under the six claimed criteria. 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. Cf Matter ofO-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) 5 ("[A] motion to reconsider is not a 
process by which a party may submit, in essence, the same brief presented on appeal and seek 
reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior. . . decision. The moving party must specify 
the factual and legal issues raised on appeal that were decided in error or overlooked in our initial 
decision .... "). Furthermore, our decision analyzed and explained why the evidence and arguments 
addressed in the prior motion did not meet the regulatory requirements. 
The Petitioner's motion does not meet the applicable requirements of a motion to reconsider because 
it does not establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). In particular, the Petitioner does not cite to any pertinent precedent decision, 
statute, regulation, binding federal court decision, USCIS policy statement, or other applicable 
authority to establish that the prior decision was defective in some regard. Because the Petitioner did 
not raise such allegations of error, we will dismiss the motion to reconsider. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that our previous decision dismissing its motion was based on an 
incorrect application oflaw or policy. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
5 0-S-G- relates to motions to reconsider before the BoardofT mmigration Appeals, governed by 8 C.F.R. § I 003.2(b )(I), 
which provides: "A motion toreconsidershallstatethereasons forthemotion by specifying the errors of fact orlaw in the 
prior Bo a rd decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority." These requirements a re fundamentally sim ilarto those 
foundat8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3), and therefore the same logic applies. 
3