dismissed O-1B Case: Acting

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarr~nted 
invasion of personal pnvacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATfEB 2 1 <tUtt: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
FILE: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washin~on, DC 205~9-2090 
U. S. Litizenshi p 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 101(a)(l5)(O)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.s.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(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. § 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-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. § 1 03.5(a)(1 )(i). 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
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 I (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 actress 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. § 214.2(0)(3)(v)(A), 
or that she has met three of the six evidentiary criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 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 it has provided "has provided 
substantial evidence consisting of the initial petition and response to request for evidence, along with this brief to 
establish that the beneficiary is a lead star in a major production, who has established a distinguished reputation in 
the field." Counsel submits a brief statement and copies of previously-submitted evidence in support of the 
appeal. 
Section 101(a)(l5)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1101(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 Congo Rec. S 18247 (daily ed., 
Nov. 16, 1991). 
The regulation at 8 c.P.R. § 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. § 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 qualify 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: 
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 office 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. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 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. 
Additionally, the regulation at 8 c.P.R. § 214.2(0)(2)(iii) provides: 
Page 4 
The evidence submitted with an 0 petition shall conform to the following: 
(A) Affidavits, contracts, awards, and similar documentation must reflect the nature of the 
alien's achievement and be executed by an officer or responsible person employed by the 
institution, firm, 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. 
It is noted that the decision of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (US CIS) in a given case is dependent 
upon the quality of the evidence submitted by the petitioner, not just the quantity of the evidence. The mere fact 
that the petitioner has submitted evidence relating to three of the criteria as required by the regulation does not 
necessarily establish that the alien satisfies the criteria and is eligible for 0-1 classification. The evidence 
submitted must establish that the beneficiary qualifies as an alien of extraordinary ability. See 59 Fed. Reg. 
41818-01,41820. 
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 the 
Mexico. The limited evidence in the record indicates that the beneficiary has been an undergraduate student at 
the University of Texas at Austin in the Department of Theatre and Dance and that she has been performing 
since approximately 2008. The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary 
achievement in the motion picture and television industry as an actress. 
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. §§ 214.2(0)(3)(v)(A) or (B). The director noted that the evidence submitted did 
not relate to at least three ofthe six criteria set forth at the 8 c.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(v)(B), and that 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 she is recognized as outstanding, notable, or leading in her field. 
On appeal, counsel for the applicant indicates that it has submitted substantial evidence to establish that the 
beneficiary is a lead star in a major production, who has established a distinguished reputation in the field. 
Upon review, and for the reasons discussed herein, counsel's assertions are not persuasive. 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. § 214.2(0)(3)(v)(A), then it will meet its burden of proof with respect to the beneficiary's eligibility for 0-
Page 5 
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 Grammy 
Award. The record does contain an Award for Outstanding Achievement in Music and Drama from the 
American School Foundation of Monterrey dated May 9,2005 which was not discussed by the director. 
This award is not equivalent in significance or acclaim to the national or international award or prize 
contemplated by the regulations. Furthermore, the award is limited to graduates of the American School 
Foundation of Monterrey. Thus, the petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility under at least three of 
the six criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(v)(B). 
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)(1). 
Upon review, the petitioner has not submitted evidence to establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
The petitioner presented evidence with the initial petition indicating that the beneficiary has performed in film and 
theatrical productions including "Turbo Tartuffe," "Dreaming in a Time of Hate," "Ophelia" and "Our Town." 
However, merely appearing in a production as a lead actor is insufficient to meet the regulatory requirement. The 
production must "have a distinguished reputation as evidenced by critical reviews, advertisements, publicity 
releases, publications contracts or endorsements." See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(v). In this case, the petitioner has 
not shown that the productions noted have a distinguished reputation as contemplated by the regUlations. 
The evidence of record contains a letter from_ artistic director of Paper Chairs and former artistic 
who states that he directed _in 2008 and "Five" in the summer of 
2009 and [the beneficiary] was a crucial part of both productions. He indicates that _received numerous 
nominations and awards for the 2008-2009 including best 
ensemble, which, he states, they would not have won without the beneficiary. no documentary 
evidence of these awards. 
In addition, the petition presented a copy of a review of the production of "Ophelia" which was published on 
Copies of two newspaper reviews published in The Daily Texan (the University of Texas at 
Austin newspaper) and the Austin Chronicle reviewing the production Our Town were also submitted. It is noted 
that "Our Town" was a production of the University of Texas at Austin College of Fine Arts, Department of 
Theatre and Dance. While it did receive favorable reviews, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that the 
production had such a distinguished reputation that the beneficiary, by virtue of her leading role in the production, 
has become recognized as outstanding, notable or leading in the motion picture or television field. 
The evidence of record also contains a review of the production "Turbo Tartuffe" published in LA Weekly 
magazine, along with a letter from I indicating that the beneficiary has been submitted for 
consideration for an LA Weekly award for her lead role in the production. There is no evidence contained in the 
record that the beneficiary was nominated for or actually received the award and the meaning of "under 
consideration" is not clear. As noted by the director, the LA Weekly article is favorable, however, it is one of 
Page 6 
several weekly reviews of various productions published by the periodical and does not confer a distinguished 
reputation as contemplated by the regulations. 
The director informed the petitioner of the deficiencies in the record in a Request for Evidence (RFE) dated June 
16, 20 II. In response, the petitioner submitted a printout of a web-site Internet Movie Data Base 
www.imdb.com. The document notes that the beneficiary played a lead role in the production 
The record also includes an advertisement for the production listing the beneficiary as the lead 
role. The web-site does not include critical review that attests to the distinguished reputation of the production. 
The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary will perform services as a lead or starring participant in 
productions or events which have a distinguished reputation in the United States. 
The record contains a letter from ••••• who indicates that he is a professional director and that he is 
considering the beneficiary for future projects. He does not name them or include contracts, press releases or any 
documentary evidence. The record also contains a letter from _, noted above, in which •••• 
indicates that he has extended an offer to the beneficiary to "participate as 
remount in the winter of 2012, which will then be taken around the country to participate in international 
festivals." There is no explanation of the production, the beneficiary's role in the production or evidence 
submitted indicating that the production has the distinguished reputation noted in the regulatory requirements. 
Furthermore, the petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the nonimmigrant visa petition. A visa 
petition may not be approved at a future date after a petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of 
facts. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Sec. 248 (Reg. Comm. 1978). 
The record also includes a copy of an email to the beneficiary indicating that the beneficiary will be included in 
with a non-disclosure agreement signed by the beneficiary 
No additional evidence is submitted regarding this production wou 
petitioner's assertion that the production has a distinguished reputation. Furthermore, the petitioner has not 
provided any documentary evidence relating to to establish that either party has 
been associated with distinguished productions in the past. Accordingly, the beneficiary does not meet this 
criterion. 
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). 
The only published materials submitted include: (I) the above-referenced review of "Our Town" published in The 
Daily Texan, the publication of the University of Texas at Austin; (2) the above referenced review of ''Turbo 
Tartuffe" from LA Weekly; (3) the above-referenced review of "Ophelia" which was published on the web-site 
www.austin360.comin the entertainment blog section. The published reviews are local publications, limited in 
scope and audience, and do not establish that the beneficiary has achieved national or international recognition as 
an actress in motion pictures or television. The record does not contain the circulation data for the noted 
Page 7 
publications or other evidence that the publications could be considered major media. Even if the AAO 
determined that the publications were major media, we cannot conclude that the brief articles constitute evidence 
of the beneficiary's receipt of national recognition for her achievements in the field of acting. Therefore, the 
beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
In order to establish that the beneficiary meets the third criterion, the petitioner must 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. 
8 C.F.R. § 2l4.2(0)(3)(v)(B)(3). 
As described above, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary is eligible for 0-1 classification primarily based on 
her performances in the four productions noted above: "Ophelia," "Our Town," "Dreaming in a Time of Hate," 
and "Turbo Tartuffe." The record contains programs/brochures for the productions "Ophelia," "Our Town," 
"Dreaming in a Time of Hate," evidencing that the beneficiary has held leading roles in each of these productions. 
However, as noted above, the petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence that the organizations producing 
these works have a distinguished reputation. 
In support of counsel's assertion that the above roles are sufficient to meet the requirements of 8 c.F.R. 
§ 214.2(0)(3)(v)(B)(3), the petitioner submits several affidavits from individuals claiming to know the beneficiary 
and attest to her extraordinary ability as an actress. 
The regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 214.2(0)(2)(iii)(B) provides that affidavits from present or former employers or 
recognized experts certifying to the recognition and extraordinary ability of the alien 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. 
submits a letter dated April 19, 2011, in which she indicates that she 
has signed the beneficiary as her client and that the beneficiary has booked several national commercials and 
"been going out on auditions constantly and consistently and her callback and booking ratios are very high." The 
declarant confirms that the beneficiary has performed in a short production, 
While is very complimentary of the beneficiary's acting abilities, and confirms her leading role in this 
production, the evidence of record does not establish the distinguished reputation of the short production in which 
she starred or of the organization or establishment that produced the film. 
The record also contains a letter from 
she met the beneficiary while working together on a production is very 
complementary of the beneficiary's acting and costume design talent. However, her letterhead includes a 
description of which states "founded in 1996 is dedicated to produce English 
theatre by creating a spring board for young artists." As a showcase for developing talent, The English Theatre of 
Rome cannot be considered to have a distinguished reputation. Additionally, ••• fails to detail the exact 
role played by the beneficiary or whether this role was a lead, starring, or critical role for organization. 
Page 8 
As noted by the director, counsel asserts that the beneficiary meets the fourth regulatory requirement through her 
appearance in a commercial for the Ford Focus, produced by Zubi Advertising. However, the petitioner has not 
submitted any evidence that, by virtue of the beneficiary's role in this commercial, the financial success or market 
share of either Ford or Zubi have been positively affected. As noted by the director, many people perform 
important roles for the Ford Motor Company however, few can be considered lead, starring or critical to the 
organization. 
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. § 214.2(0)(3)(v)(B)(4). In support of 
this criteria, with the initial petition, the petitioner submitted copies of contracts for work in which the beneficiary 
has been engaged such as the Ford Focus commercial, "Thic", and "Volarse", produced by University of 
Southern California School of Cinematic Arts. The petitioner was notified in the RFE that the evidence submitted 
in support of this regulatory requirement did not establish that the beneficiary's work in these productions is 
considered a "major commercial success" as contemplated by the regulations. Accordingly, the beneficiary does 
not meet 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. 
While the petitioner did not claim this criteria in its initial petition, in response to the RFE, the petitioner submits 
a letter from indicates that 
the beneficiary has risen to the top of her field received international acclaim for her acting. His 
statements are not supported by additional evidence which would indicate the basis of his knowledge and his 
statement is not otherwise supported by the record. Furthermore, there is nothing in the record to indicate that 
is a recognized expert in the field. 
The record also includes affidavits from four of the beneficiary's professors and acting teachers, ••••• 
They uniformly attest to the beneficiary's talent and her 
depth, complexity and dedication, however, they speak of her potential, not of her distinguished reputation at this 
point in her career. The petitioner has not established that the individuals can be considered a "recognized 
experts" in the television and motion picture industry or in the acting profession. Furthermore, as discussed above, 
neither individual mentions that the beneficiary has any acting experience, and thus these letters do not recognize 
her achievement or recognition in the field. While it appears that the beneficiary has found fairly steady work as 
an actor, these letters fail to demonstrate that the beneficiary has received significant recognition for any 
achievements in the motion picture or television industry. 
\ . 
Page 9 
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 evidence by contracts or other reliable evidence. 8 c.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(v)(B)(6). The petitioner 
indicated on Form 1-129 that the beneficiary will work full-time, however, no wage information was listed. 
The petitioner submits copies of "Checks from 
indicating that the beneficiary had year to date earned income of $22, 626 as of May 2011. It has not been 
established through the submission of objective evidence that a salary of $22,626 over a five month period 
would be considered a "high salary" in comparison to others in the field. Such evidence could include 
statistical comparisons of salaries in the field of endeavor. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that 
the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
On appeal, counsel does not acknowledge the director's substantive findings or the evidentiary requirements 
for this visa classification, which require the beneficiary to possess a very high level of accomplishment in the 
motion picture or television industry to the extent that she is recognized as outstanding, notable, or leading in 
the motion picture or television field. The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has received a 
major, internationally recognized award or that she satisfies at least three of the evidentiary criteria specified 
in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(v)(B). Consequently, the beneficiary is not eligible for 
nonimmigrant classification under section 101 (a)(l5)(0)(i) of the Act and the petition cannot be approved. 
The extraordinary ability provisions of this visa classification are intended to be highly restrictive. See 137 Congo 
Rec. S 18247 (daily ed., Nov. 16, 1991). In order to establish eligibility for 0-1 classification, the petitioner must 
establish that the beneficiary is recognized as outstanding or leading in her field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2( 0 )(3)(ii). The beneficiary's critical and commercial achievements in the television and motion picture 
industry have not yet risen to this level. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the evidence of record does not contain the consultations required 
pursuant to 8 c.F.R. § 214.2(0)(2)(ii). The regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 214.2(0)(5)(iii) requires the petitioner to 
provide a consultation from an appropriate union representing the alien's occupational peers and a management 
organization in the area of the beneficiary's ability. While the record contains a letter from the Screen Actors 
Guild (SAG) offering the beneficiary membership, this letter does not satisfy the consultation requirements at 8 
c.F.R. § 214.2(0)(5)(iii). The regulation requires the advisory opinion to "describe the alien's achievements in 
the motion picture or television field and state whether the position requires the services of an alien of 
extraordinary achievement." The letter offering membership in SAG does not meet these requirements. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by the 
AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. V. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003). The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 557(b) 
("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in 
making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule. "); see a/so, Janka V. U.S. 
Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority has been long 
recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g. Dar V. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
. -
Page 10 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternative basis for the decision. When the AAO denies a petition on multiple alternative 
grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a challenge only if it is shown that the AAO abused its discretion with 
respect to all of the AAO's enumerated grounds. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 
2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd. 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003). 
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. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.