dismissed O-1B Case: Entertainment

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22147895 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 14, 2022 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, a sports and entertainment talent agency, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as al I 
__ To do so, the Petitioner pursues 0-1 nonimmigrant classification, available to individuals who 
can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(O)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(O)(i). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
contain evidence of the Beneficiary's nomination for or receipt of a significant national or international 
award, at least three of six listed categories of documents, or comparable evidence of his eligibility. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A)-(C) 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
As relevant here, section 101(a)(l5)(O)(i) of the Act establishes 0-1 classification for an individual 
who has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been 
demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim, 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 define "extraordinary ability in the field of arts" as "distinction," and "distinction" as "a 
high level of achievement in the field of arts evidenced by a degree of skill and recognition 
substantially above that ordinarily encountered to the extent that a person described as prominent is 
renowned, leading, or well-known in the field of arts." See 8 C.F .R. § 214.2( o )(3)(ii). 
Next, DHS regulations set forth alternative initial evidentiary criteria for establishing a beneficiary's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of achievements. A petitioner may submit evidence either of 
nomination for or receipt of "significant national or international awards or prizes" such as "an 
Academy Award, an Emmy, a Grammy, or a Director's Guild Award," or at least three of six listed 
categories of documents. See 8 C.F .R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iv)(A)-(B). If the petitioner demonstrates that the 
criteria in paragraph ( o )(3 )(iv) of this section do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, it may 
submit comparable evidence in order to establish the individual's eligibility. 8 C .F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(C). 
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 ability in the arts. See section 
101(a)(15)(o)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii), (iv).1 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner does not assert, and the record does not reflect, that the Beneficiary has been nominated 
for, or is the recipient of, significant national or international awards or prizes in his field. See 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A). Accordingly, the Petitioner must satisfy at least three of the six regulatory 
criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). The Director determined that the Petitioner 
established that the Beneficiary fulfilled two of the initial evidentiary criteria, lead or starring 
participant in productions or events at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(l) and significant recognition for 
achievements at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5). Although the favorable testimonials in the record 
support the Director's determination that the Beneficiary received significant recognition for 
achievements, we do not agree with the Director's finding relating to the lead or starring participant 
in productions or events criterion, discussed later. 
The Petitioner maintains on appeal that the Beneficiary satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2) and requests that we consider comparable evidence for the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(4). 2 After reviewing all the evidence in the record, we conclude that the 
Petitioner does not establish that the Beneficiary satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
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)(iv)(B)(l). 
The Director determined, without discussion, that the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary 
satisfied this criterion. For the reasons outlined below, the record does not reflect that the Petitioner 
submitted sufficient documentary evidence demonstrating that the Beneficiary meets this criterion, 
and the Director's determination on this issue will be withdrawn. 
1 See also Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&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 While the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary 's eligibility under the lead, starring, 
or critical role for organizations and establishments criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(3) , the Petitioner does not 
address this criterion on appeal. 
2 
While it appears that the Beneficiary's! I performance withl I in 12019 was as 
a lead or starring participant for a production with a distinguished reputation, we find that the record 
does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary will prospectively serve as such a participant. At the time 
of filing, the Petitioner submitted an itinerary indicating that the Beneficiary will perform as a 
I I host, and actor in events includin an untitled Netflix __ show/seri es es_in 
Texas; live shows at the m Texas; a show 
fundraiser in Florida· a show and tour 
in several U.S. cities and the a senes m 
and and a self-titled _____ show and 3 
for in It did not, however, offer evidence that would 
distinguish his role as leading or starring within those upcoming events, and did not specifically claim 
or submit evidence, in the form required, to establish the distinguished reputation of those events. 4 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary will perform in a lead or 
starring role for a production or event with a distinguished reputation. Accordingly, we withdraw the 
decision of the Director for this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has achieved national or international recognition for 
achievements evidenced by critical reviews or other published materials by or about 
the individual in major newspapers, trade journals, magazines, or other publications. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2). 
The Petitioner provided three articles regarding the Beneficiary dated between 2019 and 2020 from 
the websites www.bazaar.town ww.vo a ela.com and www.arabianbusiness.com. The article from 
www.bazaar.town entitled, notes that 
since beginning law school i in 2016 the Beneficiary has performed 
and created two projects: ___ a YouTube docuseries, in which he "interviews successful and 
noteworthy individuals" in order to "inspire others to chase their dreams;" and I pod cast 
"to share his thoughts" and "sharpen his speaking skills." The article also provides that the Beneficiary 
recently performed as the opening act for thel I itj I before an audience of 
2,000. 
The article from www.voyagela.com entitled, __________________ 
contains an interview with the Beneficiary in which he states, "I have my 
master's, degree in law, I am a working! I and ... I continue my quest to interview successful 
people for I The Beneficiary asserts thatl "has grown to over a million total 
views." The article also contains a photograph of the Beneficiary performing I I atl I I I Although the articles from www.bazaar.town and www.voyagela.com are about the 
Beneficiary and indicate he performs as a and conducts the I docuseries 
and I I podcast, they do not reflect that his performances resulted in national or 
3 The record reflects thatl I was a project the Beneficiary began in 2020, when he decided to "turn my own 
backyard into an outdoor I I venue." 
4 We note that even though the Petitioner indicates the Beneficiary's work on several of the proposed projects will be for 
distinguished companies such as Netflix, VIACOM, and it would not automatically follow that the 
proposed I shows/series are a "production or event" with a distinguished reputation, absent evidence, in the form 
required, demonstrating their distinguished reputation in the field. 
3 
international recognition. The articles, for instance, do not indicate that the Beneficiary garnered 
national or international recognition or became nationally or internationally known for his I I 
work. 
The article from www.arabianbusiness.com, al I publication, entitled, I I I quotesl !extensively in discussing his I I 
2019 special in I and the challenges posed to I I by censorship and cultura 
sensitivities. It contains a photograph ofl land a photograph of the Beneficiary performing 
I with the caption I 
The article notes that 1 
II lorovides that in the 
region 'I 
_______________ This article is not about the Beneficiary but mentions him 
in passing, and thus does not serve to meet this criterion. Regardless, the statements in the article 
pertaining to the Beneficiary indicate he is an up-and-comingl I rather than al I who 
is already nationally or internationally recognized for his achievements in the field. 
Further, in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted material to 
establish the major standing of the above websites. It provided a printout from www.issuu.com that 
indicates that Bazaar is a monthly lifestyle magazine "distributed, free of charge, throughout! I 
at over 250 retail, fashion and dining outlets." Additional printouts from Bazaar's media kit assert 
that its website has 55,000 monthly website users. A printout from the website of ITP Media Group 
indicates that Arabian Business' "extensive output includes audio, digital, print and video interviews" 
and "+ 1,650,558 total reach." A printout from VoyageLA claims that it has generated "our first 
million page views in LA." The Petitioner does not offer evidence that the level ofreadership of any 
these digital publications is commensurate with major media. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary satisfies this 
criterion. 
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)(iv)(B)(4). 
This criterion specifically requires documentation of commercially or critically acclaimed successes 
as reported in publications. In the Beneficiary's field, evidence satisfying this criterion would 
reasonably include evidence of box office receipts, motion picture or television ratings, and similar 
evidence of tangible achievements in the stand-up comedy field. The Director determined the 
evidence submitted does not satisfy this criterion, and the record supports that conclusion. 
4 
The Petitioner maintains on appeal that as social media is now "a major indicator of commercial 
success" then "the statistics, viewership and comments on the commercial success of [the 
Beneficiary's] social media published projects should be considered as acceptable and qualifying 
comparable evidence." The Petitioner submitted screenshots showing 1.3 million views and 23,600 
subscribers for the Y ouTubel I 1,115 downloads for the 28 episodes of I I I on PodBean; 2,600 views and more than 30 subscribers for 
the Beneficiary's YouTube channel; 6,119 followers of his Tnstagram account; the availability of 
I I podcast on A le Podcasts for hrome and ound Cloud; and the 
availability on YouTube 5 The Petitioner 
also provided an article from www.tubularlabs.com dated __ 2015 entitled, "How Many Views 
Does a Y ouTube Video Get? Average Views by Category," that indicates that in the category of 
"Entertainment" the average number of Y ouTube views per video is 9,816. 
As mentioned above, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(C) provides that "[i]f the criteria in 
paragraph (o)(3)(iv) of this section do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner 
may submit comparable evidence in order to establish the beneficiary's eligibility." 6 Thus, a 
petitioner must demonstrate why the regulatory criterion does not pertain to a beneficiary's occupation 
and how the evidence submitted is "comparable" to the objective evidence required at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv). As the Director noted, the Petitioner has not asserted, or established, thatl I I I are unable to obtain such indicators of a record of major commercial or critically acclaimed 
successes as box office receipts, motion picture or television ratings, and similar evidence of tangible 
achievements in the I I field. The fact that the Beneficiary is not in possession of such 
indicators is not evidence that the criterion does not apply to his occupation. 
However, assuming arguendo that the Petitioner has established that this criterion does not readily 
apply to the Beneficiary's occupation, and that the type of evidence it has submitted is in fact 
comparable to that specifically called for under this criterion, the Petitioner has still not established 
that the Beneficiary has enjoyed commercial success. The Petitioner has not submitted evidence to 
establish that a certain quantity of views, downloads, or subscriptions of the Beneficiary's docuseries 
or podcast, whether considered individually or as a whole, can serve as a gauge of commercial success. 
Although the Tubular Labs article indicates the average number of views received by a You Tube video 
in the entertainment category, it does not describe a connection between the number of views of an 
individual's work and any commercial success it may enjoy. For that reason, the evidence submitted 
by the Petitioner is insufficient to show that the Beneficiary's docuseries and podcast have been 
commercially successful. 
Further, the Petitioner maintains that the Director erred in not considering as "comparable evidence" 
the "comments on the commercial successes of [the Beneficiary]" in testimonial letters. While these 
letters were examined by the Director and found to satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
5 The record shows that the is the live 15-minute opening act the 
Beneficiary performed forl in I in 2019. 
6 Petitioners should submit evidence outlined in the evidentiary criteria if the criteria readily apply to the beneficiary's 
occupation. However, if the petitioner establishes that a particular criterion is not readily applicable to the beneficiary's 
occupation, the petitioner may then use the comparable evidence provision to submit additional evidence that is not 
specifically described in that criterion but is comparable to that criterion. See 2 USCIS Policy Manual M.4(C), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
5 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5), the Petitioner has not demonstrated that they establish that the Beneficiary 
has enjoyed commercial success. The letters from several experts in the field of I while stating 
that the Beneficiary's docuseries lhas "a following of over 23,000 subscribers and over one 
million views" and opining that it is "astounding that he has made the I special ... and 
created a pioneering podcast all at such a young age," do not assert or detail in what manner having 
created a I I special, a podcast, and a docuseries with that quantity of views and subscribers is 
comparable to a record of major commercial successes in the field. While the authors highly praise the 
Beneficiary's skills and abilities, these letters do not establish his record of successes in the field. 
Based on the above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary satisfies this evidentiary 
criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
We conclude that the Petitioner did demonstrate that the Beneficiary meets the criterion relating to 
significant recognition for achievements. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5). The evidence, 
however, does not satisfy at least three of the six evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). 
We need not provide a totality determination to establish whether the Beneficiary has sustained 
national or international acclaim, has received a high level of achievement, and has been recognized 
as being prominent in his field of endeavor. See section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(ii) and (iv). 7 Accordingly, we reserve these issues. 8 Consequently, the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated the Beneficiary's eligibility for the 0-1 visa classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7 See also 2 USC1S Policy Manual. M.4(D), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
8 See INS v. Bagamasbad. 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516. n.7 
( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is othe1wise ineligible). 
6