dismissed O-1B Case: Film

(b)(6)
DATE: JUN 1 2 2015 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION RECEIPT#: 
U.S. Dcpar·tmcnt of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section I Ol(a)(l5)(0)(i) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § IIOI(a)(IS)(O)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form 1-2908) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Fonn I-2908 web page (wv.rw.uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing 
location, and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
;;if5~ 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
REV 3/2015 www. uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. We will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner, an entertainment agent, filed this petition seeking to classify the beneficiary as an 
0-1 nonimmigrant pursuant to section 10l(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. ll0l(a)(15)(0)(i), as an alien with extraordinary achievement in the motion 
picture or television industry. The petitioner requests that the beneficiary be granted 0-1 
classification so that he may work as a film producer/director in the United States from 
September 1, 2014 until August 30, 2017. 
On August 19, 2014, the director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner did not 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 did not 
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(o)(3)(v)(A), or that he has satisfied three of the 
six evidentiary criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B). The director's decision noted that the 
evidence of record included a negative consultation from the Director's Guild of America (DGA). 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to us. On appeal, the petitioner notes that consultations are advisory in nature 
and are not binding on USCIS. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(5)(i)(D). The petitioner asserts that it has 
submitted evidence that overcomes the negative advisory opinion and which establishes the 
beneficiary's eligibility for classification as an alien with extraordinary achievement in the motion 
picture and television industry as a producer/director. The petitioner contends that "USCIS 
discounted important evidence" pertaining to the awards that the beneficiary has received. The 
petitioner asse1ts that the beneficiary is "one of the film industry's greatest talents," whose films 
"appear at premiere events" and who "often garners frequent and positive media attention." The 
petitioner submits a brief and additional documentary evidence in support of the appeal. For the 
reasons discussed below, we agree that the petitioner did not establish the beneficiary's eligibility as 
an individual with extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or television industry. 
Accordingly, we will uphold the director's decision and dismiss the appeaL 
I. Pertinent Law and Regulations 
Section 101 (a)(IS)(O)(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 regulation at 8 C.F.R § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) provides, in pertinent part: "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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 3 
field." 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. § 214.2(o)(3)(v) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can 
demonstrate the beneficiary's recognition in the field through evidence that the alien has been 
nominated for, or 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. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(v)(A). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then a petitioner 
must submit sufficient qualifying evidence that satisfies at least three of the six categories of 
evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(J)-(6). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria does not, in and of itself, establish 
eligibility for 0-1 classification. 59 Fed. Reg. 41818, 41820 (Aug. 15, 1994). In addition, we 
have held that "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. 
Thus, in adjudicating the application pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence standard, the 
director must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both 
individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to 
be proven is probably true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
Additionally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(iii) provides: 
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. 
II. Factual and Procedural History 
The petitioner filed the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, and supporting 
documentation on June 20, 2014. The director issued a request for additional evidence (RFE) on 
July 1, 2014, to which the petitioner replied. We have considered the evidence of record in its 
entirety in reaching this decision. 
According to the beneficiary's resume, he has been training in film in the United States since at 
least 2008, and holds a Master of Fine Arts in film directing and screenwriting from 
The beneficiary's resume lists directing, producing and screenwriting credits between 
2008 and 2014, of which the producer/director credits are as follows: 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The beneficiary's resume further lists screenwriting credit for four specific feature-length films, 
"and many short films." The evidence submitted in support of the petition includes numerous 
testimonial letters, articles and promotional materials pertaining to the films the beneficiary has 
directed/produced, copies of invitations to screen those films at film festivals in the United States 
and abroad and copies of awards the beneficiary received. 
In a letter dated June 18, 2014, the petitioner, also a filmmaker, states that he has "been authorized 
to act as an agent for [the beneficiary's] other employers, as well as the beneficiary for purposes of 
filing this petition." The petitioner describes the beneficiary as "an extraordinary producer/director 
with a high level of distinction in the international film market." The petitioner describes the role 
of producer/director as "somebody who directs and produces films. They are responsible for 
taking the concept for a film project ... and turning it into a finished film by assembling a cast 
and/or crew and 'shooting' the sequences." The petitioner states that the roles and responsibilities 
of a producer/director may include the following: 
[D]eveloping the initial story or concept into a production-feasible project, managing a 
large production crew to ensure that the components of the film or TV production go ahead 
as planned, hiring and appoint[ing] members of the technical crew and cast where 
appropriate, working with the Director of Photography to deliver the project from a 
technical perspective, managing actors and ensur[ing] that all personnel deliver their best 
performance for the good of the competed picture or show, securing or procuring finance 
for the project, if it is to be an independent release, and managing the outreach and 
distribution of the film when ready. 
The record contains signed copies of the petitioner's agent contract with the beneficiary dated 
May 20, 2014, and an undated itinerary for the period from September 1, 2014 to September 15, 
2017. The petitioner's initial evidence also included employment agreements, signed by the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
petltwner, the beneficiary and representatives of each of five employers, pertaining to the 
beneficiary's employment during the requested period as follows: 
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence (RFE), the petitioner submitted "an 
updated and clarified copy of [the beneficiary's] itinerary and contracts," running from September 
L 2014 to August 30, 2017, which omitted the project' "and the employer 
In the initial cover letter, the petitioner states that he is a co-owner of 
the petitioner submits a profile for which states as follows: 
A multinational creative production company formed in 2010 .... 
(Canada), [the beneficiary] (Swiss/Mexican), [the petitioner] (Mexico), and 
On appeal, 
'· All four are primarily writer/directors with an m Film from 
in New York but with strong backgrounds in producing. The idea in 
creating the company was to push each other's work by taking turns and producing each 
other's projects .... Since its inception, has produced one feature film and 13 short 
films that span all genres with all 14 films having played in film festivals around the world 
and winning various awards .... Last year, produced its first feature film 
in Denmark . . . . Their next feature will be 
produced in association with producer 
1 
It appears that has signed the employment agreements on behalf of both and 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
On appeal, the petitioner describes the beneficiary as "one of the film industry's greatest talents," one 
who has had an "illustrious career," whose films "appear at premiere events" and who "often garners 
frequent and positive media attention." 
III. Analysis 
A. The Beneficiary's Eligibility under the Evidentiary Criteria 
The sole issue to be addressed is whether the petitioner submitted evidence to establish that the 
beneficiary satisfies the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(A) or at least three of the 
six categories of evidence listed at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(l)-(6). In denying the petition, the 
director determined that the evidence submitted does not satisfy any of these criteria. After careful 
review, the petitioner has not overcome the grounds for denial. 
In order to establish eligibility as an alien of extraordinary achievement, the statute and regulations 
require evidence of 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 field, and whose 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive docun1entation. The petitioner has 
not established that the beneficiary or his achievements have been so recognized. 
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(o)(3)(v)(A), then it v.rill meet its burden of production 
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 Grammy 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. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B). We will address 
these criteria below. 2 
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 
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. § 2l4.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(l). 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
The beneficiary's resume lists a total of eleven producer/director credits between 2008 and 2014. 
The beneficiary indicates on his resume that he has directed seven short films: ' (also 
referred to as ' 
The beneficiary's resume also lists producing 
credits for and three films directed by others: "A 
(shorts films of various directors including the beneficiary's 
the short film and the feature-length film ' 
The beneficiary's role as producer and/or director of these productions may be categorized as 
providing services as a lead participant. However, the petitioner must also establish through the 
submission of critical reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, contracts or endorsements that 
the films themselves have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner initially provided documentary evidence of awards received by the beneficiary for 
films he has produced/directed and press releases and articles showing that the beneficiary's films 
were screened at various film festivals. The petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary 
received awards including, but not limited to, the following: 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The petitioner also submitted a photograph dated April, 30, 2012, of a billboard 
advertising the 
trailer for 
showing a 
Additionally, the petltwner initially submitted press releases and articles showing that the 
beneficiary's films were screened at more than 75 film festivals, including festivals in the United 
States, Spain, Mexico, South Korea and Brazil. 
In the RFE issued on July 1, 2014, the director advised the petitioner that the initial evidence did 
not meet this criterion, and requested that the petitioner submit additional evidence to establish that 
the beneficiary has performed and will perform as a lead participant in productions or events that 
have a distinguished reputation, including evidence in the form of written reviews from critics, 
advertisements, publicity releases, publication contracts or endorsements. The director noted that 
the reviews reflect that the feature-length film \Vas well received at various film 
festivals. 
The petitioner submitted a response to the RFE, which included the beneficiary's biography from 
the and additional copies of press releases and articles showing 
the festivals at which the beneficiary's films were screened. The director determined that the 
petitioner did not satisfy the evidentiary requirements of this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner 
submits additional copies of press releases and published articles showing the festivals at which 
the beneficiary's films were screened, the majority of which are related to the film' 
and awards received by the beneficiary. 
Upon review, the record, including the petitioner's submission on appeal, does not support the 
director's determination. The petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence in the form of critical 
reviews, advertisements, publications and contracts to establish that the beneficiary satisfies the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(l). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
The petitiOner has submitted evidence that the feature film received highly 
favorable reviews in the motion picture press , positive reviews from film festival screenings ,. and 
won numerous awards. In addition, the short film, ' won a bronze medal at 
the as well as other awards , not all of which are 
student awards. We find that , based on the beneficiary ' s role as the director of 
and his role as the producer of ' the petitioner has established that the 
beneficiary has performed and will perform in a lead or starring role for productions or events 
which have a distinguished reputation. 
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 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214 .2(o)(3)(v)(B)(2) requires the petitioner to 
demonstrate that the beneficiary has achieved national or international recognition for achievements 
through submission of critical reviews or other published materials by or about the individual in major 
newspapers, trade journals, magazines, or other publications. In general, in order for published 
material to meet this criterion, it must be about the beneficiary and, as stated in the regulations, be 
printed in major newspapers, magazines or other major publications. To qualify as major media, the 
publication should have significant national or international distribution. The director determined 
that the petitioner did not satisfy the evidentiary requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner has provided numerous articles that mention the beneficiary by name, several with 
photographs of the beneficiar y, in reviewing film awards ceremonies and films screened at film 
festivals in the United States and abroad, in publications including , but not limited to, the 
While not addressed by the director in her decision, the translation certifications of the foreign­
language articles are all photocopies of the same certification used for multiple translations. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) states: "Any document containing foreign language submitted 
to US CIS shall be accompanied · by a full English language translation which the translator has 
certified as complete and accurate , and by the translator ' s certification that he or she is competent 
to translate from the foreign language into Engl ish." A single certification, whether or not copied , 
that does not list the translations it certifies is not probative evidence that the translator(s) of each 
translation certified the translation. Because these translations do not comply with 8 C.F.R. 
§ 
1 03.2(b )(3), they have significantly diminished probative value. 
The articles about the awards in general are not about the beneficiary . Rather, they only briefly 
mention the beneficiary. The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires that the published 
material be "about the individual. " In addition , while the authors of the published material from 
film festivals speak very positively of the beneficiary ' s films , the articles do not recognize the 
beneficiary's individual achievements in the motion picture industr y as a filmmaker or the 
national/international recognition he received for such achievements. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 10 
The petitioner also submitted two interviews with the beneficiary from Swiss German-language 
newspapers. The first, 
appeared in the on May 25, 2012, and contains a picture of the 
beneficiary. The interview indicates that the beneficiary was finishing his master's degree in film 
at that his short film was selected for the at 
the The interview states that at the beneficiary "organizes meetings 
after meetings with programmers in order to find out to what festivals he should submit his film." 
The interview notes that after the beneficiary is producing his first feature film 
in and that the beneficiary's main reason why he is in is to 
make contacts with Danish filmmakers. The interview notes that interest in the beneficiary's work 
grew after a short film of the beneficiary's won a Student Oscar, and quoted the beneficiary as 
stating, "[ e ]ach day I get one or two emails from production companies, agents and managers, who 
suddenly are interested in me." 
The record does not contain the circulation data for the or other evidence that the 
publication could be considered major media. Even if we determined that the is a 
major newspaper, we cannot conclude that this brief article is evidence of the beneficiary's receipt 
of national recognition for his achievements in the field of filmmaking. The article reflects that the 
beneficiary was currently a student filmmaker seeking out festivals and investors for his work for 
whom interest has recently begun to grow, rather than a film director/producer who is already 
nationally recognized for his achievements in the field. 
The second article appeared in the October 7, 2013, edition of the 
and also mentions that the beneficiary is pursuing his MFA in film directing and 
screenwriting at The article mentions that the beneficiary was currently 
producing a feature film "l that includes a segment he directed 
m It also states that ' has been shown 
at over 40 film festivals. including recently being screened at the It discusses 
his upcoming film and notes that because he won the Student Oscar for " 
he received some press in Switzerland and that "f w le were able to present our 
production company Fidelio film at the major studios in Because of the prize, I've 
also got a manager in the USA ... to advance our film projects." The petitioner has not established 
that the s 
a "major newspaper" in Germany, rather than a local or regional 
newspaper. Additionally, the article indicates that the beneficiary is student filmmaker whose film 
projects are beginning to be advanced, rather than a film director/producer who is already 
nationally recognized for his achievements in the field. 
Further, while the petitioner has submitted numerous favorable critical reviews of the feature film 
_ the reviews do not demonstrate the beneficiary's recognition for achievements 
because, while some of them list him as one of several producers, the reviews all focus on the 
film's director, 
Finally, the petitioner submitted foreign-language articles published on the websites 
but the petitioner has not provided translations of the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 11 
articles. Because the petitioner did not submit full and certified English language translations, it 
did not comply with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), as set forth above. As such, the 
petitioner has not established that these materials demonstrate his national or international 
recognition for achievements as required under the plain language of the criterion. Moreover, the 
petitioner has not documented the significance of these websites. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the evidence satisfies the evidentiary 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(2). 
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. 
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. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(3). The 
director determined that the petitioner did not satisfy the evidentiary requirements of this criterion. 
The beneficiary has performed as a producer/director for and/or 
companies that he founded. The petitioner has provided no information regarding any other 
organizations or establishments that have employed the beneficiary in the past. While the evidence 
establishes that the beneficiary previously performed as a producer, director and screenwriter, the 
submitted evidence does not describe the duties the petitioner performed for either organization in 
his various roles, or establish how his position fit within the overall hierarchy of the organizations. 
The record also does not contain the required documentary evidence in the form of articles in 
newspapers, trade journals, publications or testimonials pertaining to the reputation of 
Additionally, the petitioner has asserted that the evidence establishes the beneficiary's eligibility 
based on his role with the 
co-directors of in Colorado provided a joint reference 
Jetter mentioning the role the beneficiary played in their organization ' s event, 
which they describe as "an annual six-day festival that is one of the world's premier international 
showcases for the trend-setting art form: the short," and "an influential event in the film world 
because it identifies and celebrates emerging talent." Ms. and Mr. stated that the 
beneficiary's films, "were screened at the m 
2013 and 2014, respectively, where "[i]n addition to presenting his films . . [the beneficiary] 
generously mentored students interested in filmmaking. At we provide free one-of-a­
kind educational enrichment opportunities for middle and high schools. [The beneficiary] played 
an invaluable role by generously sharing his experience with local students about the creative and 
technical aspects of the filmmaking process. " Ms. and Mr. do not assert in their 
letter that the beneficiary played a lead, starring or critical role in their organization . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
Director of Awards and Operations at provided two 
reference letters, dated April 1, 2014, and August 20, 2014, respectively. In her first letter, Ms. 
stated that the beneficiary "played a critical role for our organization as a juror for our 
_ ' In her second letter she stated that the beneficiary "served 
as a juror for our " Her letters stated that the beneficiary 
helped to evaluate numerous films in the organization's student drama category, and that his jury 
was thorough, critical and provided wonderful and constructive feedback for the young 
filmmakers. Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the 
petitioner's burden ofproof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 
1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at 
*5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. 
The Attorney General ofthe United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
A leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall organizational hierarchy and should 
be accompanied by the role's matching duties. A critical role should be apparent from the 
petitioner's impact on the organization or the establishment's activities. The petitioner's 
performance in this role should establish whether the role was critical for an organization or 
establishment as a whole. Ms. letters do not explain how the petitioner performed in a 
leading or a critical role for the organization beyond concluding that he did. 
The reference letters submitted by the petitioner are not without weight and have been considered 
above. We may, in our discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm 'r 1988). However, 
we are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for 
the benefit sought. Id The submission of letters of support from the petitioner's personal contacts 
is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; we may evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N 
Dec. at 500 n.2 (BIA 2008). Thus, the content of the writers' statements and how they became 
aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. Even when written by 
independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less 
weight than preexisting, independent evidence. We affirm the director's finding that the petitioner 
did not submit evidence demonstrating that he has performed in a lead, starring or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In addition, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary will provide services as a lead or 
starring participant for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. The 
"updated and clarified" employment agreements establish that the beneficiary will work as a film 
producer/director for 
The plain language of the regulation requires "[ e ]vidence that the alien has performed, and will 
perform, in a lead, starring or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation." (Emphasis added.) The petitioner has not demonstrated how the 
beneficiary's role as a producer/director on a film rises to the level of a lead, starring or critical 
role for the film's production company. While the petitioner has established the beneficiary's job 
title on upcoming film projects, the submitted evidence does not describe how the beneficiary will 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
contribute to the each production company as a whole or how his position fits within the overall 
hierarchy ofthe company. 
The petitioner also did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the production 
companies enjoy a distinguished reputation. On appeal the petitioner asserts that 
are established award-winning production 
houses. While the petitioner has provided promotional materials from those companies as evidence 
of their reputations, as previously noted, the plain language of this criterion requires the 
submission of evidence in the form of newspapers, trade journals, publications or testimonials. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffzci, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing 
Matter of Treasure Craft of Caljfornia, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted evidence to satisfy the evidentiary criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(3). 
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. 
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 ofthe alien's achievements. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(5). 
The petitioner has submitted testimonial letters from 26 individuals. The director determined that 
the evidence of record does not establish that the beneficiary satisfies the criterion. On appeal, the 
petitioner characterizes the beneficiary as "one of the film industry's greatest talents" and argues 
that the director did not take into proper consideration the reference letters submitted from 
"international clients, colleagues and peers" and "entertainment professionals who confirm the 
significant reputation [the beneficiary] has built as a producer/director, while offering details about 
his invaluable creative contributions to the field." 
We acknowledge the petitioner's assertions on appeal that "the fact that some of [the beneficiary's] 
films were created during [his] time at , only goes to highlight his high level of 
distinction. To compete with film professionals and still win multiple awards and high acclaim for his 
work, despite being a student, only serves to further illustrate [the beneficiary's] extraordinary ability 
as a director/producer." 
At issue is not the beneficiary's student status when he won the award, but whether the pool of 
candidates was limited to students. It is the petitioner's burden to establish the recognition that 
accrues from an award that excludes from competition those experienced in the field. In this 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
matter, the petitioner has met that burden with respect to one of the awards. Specifically, we find 
that the beneficiary's receipt of a bronze medal at the ceremony held by 
which was covered by the at both the nomination and award stage, is 
evidence of "significant recognition for achievements from organizations in the field," pursuant to 
the plain language of the criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has established that the beneficiary meets this criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(5). 
IV. Conclusion 
The petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(A) or at least 
three criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B). Consequently, the petitioner has not established that the 
beneficiary is eligible for classification as an alien with extraordinary achievement in the motion 
picture or television industry and the petition may not be approved. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.