dismissed O-1B Case: Acting/Stunt Artist

US. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
OfJice of Administrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 09 0 18 5 1870 
 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
IN RE: 
DEC 0 3 2009 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 10l(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. S; 1 lOl(a)(lS)(O)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
erry Rhew 
hief, Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 09 018 51870 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this petition seeking to classify the beneficiary as an 0-1 nonimmigrant pursuant to section 
10 1 (a)(l5)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), as an alien with extraordinary achievement in 
the motion picture or television industry. The petitioner, a California-based talent agency, seeks to employ the 
beneficiary as an actorlstunt artist for a period of three years. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has a 
demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement in the motion picture and television industry. In denying the 
petition, the director determined that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has been nominated for 
or has been the recipient of a significant national or international award, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(v)(A), 
or that he has met three of the six evidentiary criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R.5 214.2(0)(3)(v)(B). 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded 
the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the director "has not put the 
evidence provided into proper accord and has only skimmed through both the original documents as well as the 
RFE response." Counsel contends that the beneficiary meets five of the six evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 
2 1 4.2(0)(3)(v)(B). 
Section 10 1 (a)(] 5)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U. S.C. 5 1 10 1 (a)(15)(0)(i), provides classification to a qualified alien 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. The extraordinary ability 
provisions of this visa classification are intended to be highly restrictive. See 137 Cong. Rec. S18247 (daily ed., 
Nov. 16, 1991). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 214.2(0)(3)(ii) provides the following pertinent 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(v) states, in pertinent part: 
Evidentiary criteria for an 0-1 alien of extraordinary achievement in the motion picture of 
television industry. To qualifL as an alien of extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or 
television industry, the alien must be recognized as having a demonstrated record of 
extraordinary achievement as evidenced by the following: 
WAC 09 018 51870 
Page 3 
(A) 
 Evidence that the alien has been nominated for, or has been the recipient 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; or 
(B) 
 At least three of the following forms of documentation: 
(1) 
 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; 
(2) 
 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; 
(3) 
 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; 
(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 ofice receipts, motion picture or television ratings, and other occupational 
achievements reported in trade journals, major newspapers, or other 
publications; 
(5) 
 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; or 
(6) 
 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. 
Additionally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
 214.2(0)(2)(iii) provides: 
The evidence submitted with an 0 petition shall conform to the following: 
WAC 09 018 51870 
Page 4 
(A) 
 Affidavits, contracts, awards, and similar documentation must reflect the nature of the 
alien's achievement and be executed by an offtcer or responsible person employed by the 
institution, fm, establishment, or organization where the work was performed. 
(B) 
 Affidavits written by present or former employers or recognized experts certifying to the 
recognition and extraordinary ability . . . shall specifically describe the alien's recognition 
and ability or achievement in factual terms and set forth the expertise of the affiant and the 
manner in which the affiant acquired such information. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214,2(0)(2)(ii) requires the petitioner to submit copies of any written 
contracts between the petitioner and the beneficiary; an explanation of the nature of the events or activities, along 
with an itinerary; and two consultations, one from an appropriate union and one from an appropriate 
management organization. 
The record consists of a petition with supporting documentation, a request for additional evidence (RFE) and the 
petitioner's reply, the director's decision, and an appeal. The beneficiary in this case is a native and citizen of 
Japan whose resume includes one lead role in a short film, various supporting film roles, two television 
commercials, and several stage productions. The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with 
extraordinary achievement in the motion picture and television industry as an actorlstunt artist. 
In denying the petition, the director found that the petitioner had failed to satisfy any of the eligibility 
requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. $9 214.2(0)(3)(v)(A) or (B). The director noted that while the evidence 
submitted related to at least three of the six criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(0)(3)(v)(B), the quality of the 
evidence submitted was insufficient to establish that the beneficiary's achievement in the motion picture or 
television industry has risen to the level where he is recognized as outstanding, notable, or leading in the field. 
Upon review, and for the reasons discussed herein, the AAO concurs with the director's determination. The 
petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is fully qualified as an alien with extraordinary achievement in 
the motion picture and television industry pursuant to the regulatory definition and evidentiary criteria applicable 
to the 0- 1 visa classification. 
If the petitioner establishes through the submission of documentary evidence that the beneficiary has been 
nominated for or has received a significant national or international award or prize in his or her field pursuant to 8 
C.F.R. tj 214.2(0)(3)(v)(A), then it will meet its burden of proof with respect to the beneficiary's eligibility for 0- 
1 classification. Here, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that the beneficiary has been nominated for or 
received a significant national or international award or prize comparable to an Academy, Emmy or Grarnmy 
Award. 
As there is no evidence that the beneficiary has been nominated for or received a significant national or 
international award or prize, the petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility under at least three of the six 
criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(v)(B). 
WAC 09 018 51870 
Page 5 
In order to meet criterion number one, the petitioner must submit evidence that the beneficiary 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(0)(3)(v)(B)(I). The petitioner claims that the beneficiary meets this criterion, 
and the related criterion at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(0)(3)(v)(B)(3), which requires the petitioner to submit 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. The AAO notes that the petitioner relies on the same evidence to meet both criteria. 
The petitioner has submitted evidence that the beneficiary performed in a lead role in the short, Japanese- 
language horror film, in 2005. The film was an official selection of the Chicago Horror Film Festival and 
the 9th Annual Indies Movie Festival in Japan, and was eventually released on DVD; however, there is 
insufficient evidence to establish that the film itself or the film festivals in which it appeared have a distinguished 
reputation. The petitioner submitted a brief article fiom Cinema Square magazine (Japan, date not provided), 
which was related to the release of the film on DVD, however this article is insufficient to establish the 
distinguished reputation of the film. The petitioner has not submitted critical reviews, advertisements, publicity 
releases, testimonials or other documentary evidence establishing the film's reputation or the reputation of the 
festivals that selected the film. While counsel emphasizes that the beneficiary has appeared in other films, 
including and asserts that he has worked with famous actors and directors, 
it is evident that, as of the date the petition was filed, the beneficiary's sole lead acting role in a motion picture was 
in = 
The record contains evidence that the beneficiary appeared in a Verizon Wireless television commercial in 2006, 
and in a Jinro (Japanese beverage) commercial in 2004. Counsel indicates that these are "the world's most 
distinguished companies." While these may be well-known companies in their respective industries, the fact that 
the beneficiary appeared in their commercials is insufficient evidence of his extraordinary achievement in the 
television industry. The petitioner has submitted photo stills fiom the advertisements and evidence of the 
beneficiary's payment for his appearance in the Verizon commercial. The petitioner has not provided contracts, 
publicity releases regarding the advertising campaigns, or other evidence to establish that the beneficiary 
performed in a leading role or that the advertising campaigns were distinguished in any way. These two 
television commercials appear to represent the extent of the beneficiary's experience in the television industry. 
Finally, counsel emphasizes that the beneficiary was awarded "Best Actor of the Year" by the Theatre of Arts 
Hollywood in 2006 for his performance as Cassius in a stage production of Julius Ceasar. The scope and 
significance of this award has not been explained or documented. According to a letter from -1 
Director of Education at the Theatre of Arts, the beneficiary was "an exemplary student" at the Theatre of Arts 
and attended acting classes there. Therefore, based on the limited evidence submitted, he appears to have been 
awarded based on his work in local, student theatre productions. The petitioner has not submitted critical reviews, 
advertisements, publicity releases, testimonials or other evidence to establish the distinguished reputation of the 
student productions or the reputation of the Theatre of Arts. The AAO notes that -1 of the 
Theatre of Arts, writes that "American Directors, Producers, Casting Directors are aware of [the beneficiary] and 
[hlis brilliance," as a result of winning the award, but this statement alone is insufficient to establish the 
distinguished reputation of the award, the Theatre of Arts, or its productions. Furthermore, while the beneficiary's 
WAC 09 018 51870 
Page 6 
best actor award is notable, this award for stage acting is not indicative of his extraordinary achievement in the 
motion picture and television industry. 
In addition, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary will provide services as a lead or starring 
participant in productions or events with a distinguished reputation, and/or for organizations or establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. The AAO notes that, based on the evidence submitted at the time of 
filing, the beneficiary has been offered a lead voice-over role in a feature film titled '" being 
produced by for Daiseye Pictures. The petitioner has provided no explanation or 
documentary evidence regarding the project or the studio that will produce the film, and it can not be 
concluded that the beneficiary's participation in the project would meet the evidentiary criteria. Counsel's 
claims that the beneficiary's "proposed projects" have budgets that exceed one million dollars and "will be 
featuring a cast of some of the most popular actors and actresses in the entertainment industry," are not 
supported by any evidence. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
Accordingly, the beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
On appeal, counsel refers to the beneficiary as " and claims that the "beneficiary is a renowned 
dancer who has performed at prestigious TV productions and stages which a distinguished reputation 
produced [sic] and directed by acclaimed and prestigious producers and directors," and that "due to her 
extraordinary performances, she has been extended offers to perform in major productions as evidence [sic] 
by contracts and endorsements." Counsel's assertion is unpersuasive, as, by all other accounts, the beneficiary 
is a male actor rather than a female dancer. 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has performed as a lead or starring 
participant in productions or events which have a distinguished reputation, or that he has or will perform in a lead, 
starring or critical role for organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation. Therefore, the 
criterion at 8 C.F .R. 5 $2 14.2(0)(3)(v)(B)(l) and (3) have not been met. 
In order to establish that the beneficiary meets the second criterion, the petitioner must submit 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(0)(3)(v)(B)(2). On appeal, counsel asserts that the beneficiary has submitted 
"copies of various newspaper and magazine articles, advertisements, concert reviews, and other materials relating 
to the current success and remarkable achievement of [the beneficiary's] career," and contends that "[the 
beneficiary's] performances have been publicized in major newspapers, magazines and internet websites." 
Counsel further indicates that the petitioner is attaching, as "Exhibit H," copies of newspaper and magazine 
articles" as evidence of the beneficiary's international recognition. The AAO notes that the only "Exhibit H in the 
record was submitted in response to the director's RFE, and it is not comprised of copies of newspaper and 
magazine articles. 
Upon review, the only published materials in the record of proceeding include: (1) a brief quote from the 
beneficiary that was published in an unknown Japanese publication; (2) an article titled "Cover Closeup" that 
WAC 09 018 51870 
Page 7 
appeared in the January 15, 2007 issue of Bridge USA., a biweekly Japanese-language periodical published in 
the United States; and (3) a brief article regarding the DVD release of hich appeared in Cinema Square 
magazine (Japan). The article in Bridge USA is brief, and mentions that the beneficiary attended acting classes at 
the Theatre of Arts in Los Angeles and played a lead role in" The article in Cinema Square magazine 
provides a brief summary of the plot of" mentions that the beneficiary was the leading actor in the film, 
and notes that he "got his first nominee of the Best Actor in the Japan Indies Film." The AAO notes that there is 
no mention of such nomination elsewhere in the record. Upon review, the minimal evidence submitted to 
establish this criterion does not demonstrate that the beneficiary has received national or international media 
recognition for his achievements in the motion picture and television industry. Only one article is specifically 
about the beneficiary and it does little more than provide a brief biography and confm that he held a leading role 
in ' The evidence submitted to meet this criterion is not persuasive evidence that the beneficiary has 
achieved 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 he is recognized as 
outstanding, notable, or leading in the motion picture or television field. 
To establish that the beneficiary meets the fourth criterion, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary 
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. 
§ 2 14.2(0)(3)(v)(B)(4). 
While counsel claims on appeal that the beneficiary meets this criterion, the petitioner did not address this 
criterion at the time it responded to the director's request for evidence. Counsel claims that the petitioner 
provided "a detailed explanation of the Beneficiary's [sic] relating to his commercial success and other 
qualifications contributing to such were provided." Counsel refers to "letters of recommendation and 
publications involving highly acclaimed productions." However, as discussed above, the petitioner has 
submitted minimal evidence regarding the beneficiary's work from published sources. The regulations do not 
indicate that this criterion can be met through "a detailed explanation" or through "letters of recommendation" 
from the beneficiary's colleagues and teachers. Rather, this criterion requires the petitioner to submit 
evidence that there is a published record of the beneficiary's critical or commercial success, such that his 
achievement is acknowledged in the industry at-large. The petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary 
meets this criterion. 
In order to meet the fifth regulatory criterion, the petitioner may submit evidence that the beneficiary 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. $ 
2 14.2(0>(3>(v>(J3>(5>. 
Further, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(2)(iii)(D) provides that affidavits written by present or former 
employers or recognized experts certifying to the recognition and extraordinary ability shall specifically describe 
the alien's recognition and ability or achievement in factual terms and set forth the expertise of the affiant and the 
manner in which the affiant acquired such information. 
WAC09018 51870 
Page 8 
Counsel does not specifically address this criterion on appeal, but, in reference to the second criterion, noted 
that the petitioner submitted "letters of recommendation from various prominent dance luminaries, producers 
and other professionals who bear witness to the Beneficiary's extraordinary history of distinguished 
professional achievement and her manifest talent and ability in Japan and internationally." Counsel appears to 
be referring to a different petition involving a different beneficiary. Nevertheless, the petitioner did submit 
several recommendation letters written on behalf of the beneficiary in this proceeding. 
performer who has truly learned his craft." He describes the beneficiary as "irreplaceable and a real treasure 
in the Japan film industry." However, he does not describe the beneficiary's achievements or recognition in 
the motion picture and television industry in factual terms, or indicate any knowledge of the beneficiary's 
accomplishments in the field beyond the single project in which he worked with the beneficiary. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from - of the Theatre of Arts, who states that the 
beneficiary is a "strong, dynamic and much desired artist," who "brings to all his work magic unlike any other 
~rtist." indicates that many American producers have already hired the beneficiary and states that 
"he will certainly have no problems securing work within a larger and more important community." While 
tatements are highly complimentary with respect to the beneficiary's talent, he does not directly 
discuss the beneficiary's achievements or accomplishments in any detail. Rather, his statements suggest that 
he regards the beneficiary as an actor who is prepared to move to higher levels of achievement and 
recognition within the industry, rather than as an actor who is already regarded as leading or renowned in the 
field. 
The petitioner provided a letter from a directorlwriter who states that he cast the 
beneficiary in a supporting role in his film " states that the beneficiary's 
"talent and professionalism almost guarantee his [sic] a successful career in an international market," and 
opines that the beneficiary "is going to be a hu e treasure for all of us." speaks highly of the 
beneficiary's' talent and potential, but, like and he does not describe in any detail 
his knowledge of the beneficiary's' achievements or recognition in the field to date. 
The record includes a letter from an actor who states that he worked with the beneficiary on 
'and many other motion picture projects." He indicates that the beneficiary "is irreplaceable and a real 
treasure in the American film industry." does little more than confirm that the beneficiary is a 
talented actor who appeared in ' His recommendation does not describe the beneficiary's recognition or 
achievement in the industry in factual terms. 
- of the International School of Motion Pictures, states that he has known the 
beneficiary for two years. 
 notes that the beneficiary appeared in " a thesis short film 
directed by one of the school's students, and remarks that the beneficiary "not only spoke fluent English but also 
appeared to be a very confident, professional actor." Again, does not address the beneficiary's 
achievement or recognition in the motion picture and television industry. Rather, he indicates that he was 
WAC 09 018 51870 
Page 9 
impressed with the beneficiary's work in one short film directed by a student and by the beneficiary's 
communication skills. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted a letter from , an actor who states that he worked with the 
beneficiary in "An Audition" in which "he gave performances more than my expectation." states that 
the beneficiary "has a genius talent as an actor very much," but, as with the other individuals providing witness 
letters, he does not discuss the beneficiary's achievements or recognition in the industry. 
While the AAO recognizes that the individuals who provided letters hold a very high opinion of the 
beneficiary's talent and potential, the submitted testimonials do not satisfy the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
fj 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(B)(5). None of the persons providing testimonials have clearly indicated their knowledge of 
the beneficiary's achievements in the field of acting. Rather, several of them opine that the beneficiary's 
achievements and recognition in the field will occur in the future if the beneficiary has an opportunity to 
continue to develop his natural talent. 
Furthermore, the petitioner has not established that any of the individuals providing letters could be considered a 
"recognized expert" in the television and motion picture industry or in the acting profession. While reference 
letters can satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(B)(5), to do so the letters must reflect that the 
beneficiary has a very high level of accomplishment in the motion picture or television industry to the extent 
that he is recognized as outstanding, notable, or leading in the motion picture or television field. Subjective 
assessments of talent cannot suffice in this regard. Furthermore, an artist whose reputation is largely confined 
to former instructors and colleagues has not achieved a degree of recognition significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered in the motion picture and television industry. The petitioner has not submitted 
evidence that the beneficiary has gained any recognition in his field beyond his circle of former co-workers 
and teachers. The letters do not demonstrate significant recognition outside of that circle consistent with the 
accomplishments associated with an alien with extraordinary achievement. 
The sixth and final criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence that the beneficiary 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. 5 214.2(0)(3)(v)(B)(d). The petitioner 
has offered the beneficiary an annual salary of $80,000. The beneficiary has also been offered a fee of 
$900/day for work on the feature film "Cloud on a Hill," although it is unclear how many days of work would 
be involved in the project. At the time of filing the petitioner also submitted a "deal memo" for an untitled 
project, which was estimated to involve between 10 and 18 days of work at a rate no lower than $100 per day. 
The director acknowledged the proposed $80,000 salary, but observed that the petitioner submitted no source 
of statistical comparison that would allow USCIS to determine whether the beneficiary's salary is "a high 
salary" in relation to other actors in the television or motion picture industry. 
On appeal, the petitioner states that the beneficiary's deal memo with Daiseye Pictures for "Cloud on a Hill" 
reflects that "he commands the highest remunerationlsalary among his peers worldwide." Counsel provides no 
basis for this conclusion. As noted above, it is unclear whether the beneficiary is being paid the stated daily 
rate for the duration of the contract or solely for days on which he is required to perform services related to 
WAC 09 01 8 5 1870 
Page 10 
the film. The petitioner has not provided information about the top salaries of actors in the television or 
motion picture industries. It has therefore not been established that the daily rate of $900 is a "high salary" in 
relation to highly accomplished television or motion picture actors, such that it would be considered 
indicative of the beneficiary's extraordinary achievement. 
Counsel further states that, according to "Salary.com," only 10% of actors and performing artists earn more 
than $68,972, thus qualifying the beneficiary's base salary of $80,000 as a high salary. The petitioner did not 
provide a copy of the data to which he is referring and the information cannot be verified. Going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the 
beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Overall, the record does not establish that the beneficiary is an alien of extraordinary achievement in the motion 
picture or television industry. As noted above, "extraordinary achievement" 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, as required by section 10 1 (a)(] 5)(0) of the Act. The petitioner 
submitted no evidence that the beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award and the 
documentation submitted does not meet three of the six evidentiary criteria specified in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 214.2(0)(3)(v)(B). Consequently, the beneficiary is not eligible for nonimmigrant classification under section 
10 ](a)(] 5)(0) of the Act and the petition must be denied. 
The extraordinary ability provisions of this visa classification are intended to be highly restrictive. See 137 Cong. 
Rec. S 1 8247 (daily ed., Nov. 16, 199 1). In order to establish eligibility for 0- 1 classification, the petitioner must 
establish through submission of extensive documentation that the beneficiary is recognized as outstanding, 
notable or leading in his field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(ii). While the beneficiary appears to be a 
talented actor with the potential to reach a higher standing in the industry, he does not have a demonstrated record 
of extraordinary achievement nor have his achievements been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER. The appeal is dismissed.