dismissed O-1B Case: Film

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF W-C-
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 12. 2017 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an artistic representative, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an individual of 
extraordinary achievement in motion picture or television productions. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(0)(i). 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i). This 0-1 
classification makes nonimmigrant visas available to foreign nationals whose achievements in this 
industry have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary met at least three of the six regulatory criteria. 
Specifically, the Director found that the Petitioner had satisfied only one criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Beneficiary meets three 
additional criteria. He contends that the Director erred in determining that the Beneficiary is not 
eligible for the classification sought and did not properly consider all of the evidence. 
Upon de novo review. we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
As relevant here, section 101 (a)(l5)(0)(i) of the Act provides classification to a qualified beneficiary 
who has a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement with regard to motion picture and 
television productions, 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 implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) clarities, in pertinent pm1: 
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. 
.
Matter of W-C-
Next, the regulations set forth the evidentiary criteria for establishing recognition of a beneficiary"s 
achievements. A petitioner must either submit evidence of the beneficiary's nomination or receipt of 
significant national or international awards or prizes in the particular field such as an Academy Award. 
an Emmy, a Grammy, or a Director's Guild Award. or documentation satisfying at least three of the 
six categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(A)-(B). When a petitioner provides the 
requisite evidence, we then determine whether the record, viewed in its totality. shows a record of 
extraordinary achievement in the motion picture and television industry and demonstrates that the 
beneficiary's achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Introduction 
The Petitioner tiled the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker. and supporting 
documentation, seeking to represent the Beneficiary during his employment as a director of 
photography for a period of three years. An accompanying ··summary of agency agreement" 
between the parties indicates that the Beneficiary "will serve as a key Head of Department on the 
film productions providing the films with their unique visual identity. He will play a major creative 
role in crafting and developing the desired visual style of the films and assuring that the results fit 
with the overall vision for the projects.'' The evidence also includes an offer of employment from 
and deal memos ret1ecting that the Beneficiary will provide services 
for the films 
and· 
According to his profile from the the Beneficiary "has shot 
several short films, music, and web videos.'' He graduated from the 
in 2012 and the in 2015. In addition. the record 
contains the required consultations and several testimonial letters. The Petitioner also provided 
articles and promotional materials pertaining to projects the Beneficiary filmed, and information 
pertaining to film festivals at which his work has been screened, along with awards received by 
productions on which he worked. 
B. Extraordinary Achievement in the Motion Picture or Television Industry 
The question to be addressed is whether the Petitioner offered evidence to establish that the Beneficiary 
satisfies the evidentiary 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(A) or at least three of the six categories 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(l)-(6). The Petitioner does not assert, and the record does not 
ret1ect, 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)(v)(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 Beneficiary has performed. and will perfom1. 
services as a lead or starring participant in productions or events which have a distinguished reputation 
2 
.
Matter ofW-C-
as evidenced by critical reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, publications, contracts. or 
endorsements, and thus, that he satisfied the criterion for leading or starring paiiicipation in 
distinguished productions or events under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(l). The Director f(mnd the 
record insufficient to meet 
the remaining criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary also meets the criteria for: leading. starring. 
or critical roles in distinguished organizations or establishments under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(J) and(3); recognition for achievements evidenced by critical reviews or 
published material under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(2); and significant recognition for 
achievements from organizations, critics, government agencies, or other recognized experts under 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(5). 1 The record, however, does not support the Director's finding that 
the Beneficiary meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(l) or that he meets any additional 
criteria. 
1. Evidentiary Criteria 
Evidence that the alien has performed. and will perform. services as a lead or starrinK 
participant in productions or events which have a distinKuished reputation as evidenced 
by critical reviews. advertisements. publicity releases. publications. contracts. or 
endorsements. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(l). 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary has performed as a leading or starring participant as a 
director of photography for ' and three Japanese hip hop artists' 
music videos. In addition, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary played a leading role as 
director for his short film, For the reasons outlined below, we find that the 
Petitioner has not submitted sufficient documentary evidence showing that the Beneficiary meets the 
plain language of this criterion. Accordingly, the Director's determination on this issue will be 
withdrawn. 
The letters of support and other evidence sufficiently demonstrate that the Beneficiary's role as 
director of photography and film director for the aforementioned 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 and music videos themselves have a distinguished reputation. Within his initial submission 
and response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided documentation that the Beneficiary's films were 
selected for various film festivals in the United States and abroad. For example. his work was 
included in the 
and 
addition, the Beneficiary's films received three awards including: 
In 
1 As the Petitioner has not contested the Director's findings with regard to the remaining criteria. we will not address 
them in this decision. 
.
Matter of W-C-
• (monthly online film festival) - .. 
(20 16); 
• (2016); and 
• (online film festival) - ---------------------
While the Petitioner submitted information about the above film festivals from their websites and 
other online sources, the documentation is not sutlicient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary's 
productions enjoyed a distinguished reputation by virtue of the awards or screenings. For instance. 
the scope, significance, and level of distinction of the above awards has not been explained or 
documented. Furthermore, the record does not demonstrate that the selection requirements for the 
film festivals in which the Beneficiary's productions were screened are indicative of a distinguished 
reputation. For example, the focuses on exhibiting the work "produced by 
post-secondary 
student filmmakers." 
The record contains an 2016 article, entitled ' from 
a New York focused entertainment magazine. In the article. the organizer of the 
second annual states that ''there's a lot of youth film makers who are 
interested in getting their voice heard and their films made; we just want to give them the 
opportunity.'· This article, which lists' and ten other films, further notes that ''[t]he tilm 
festival gave the youth an opportunity to express themselves in a manner that many may never 
receive." The film festival coverage from is not sufficient demonstrate that " 
has earned a distinguished reputation. 
In addition. the Petitioner provides a 2016 article from a press release distribution 
website, discussing the debut of the Beneficiary's new film ··at 
While the article does not actually identify the name of the film. it appears to relate to his short film 
The article indicates that it ··was shown in the 
and that "[t]he feedback was reaction [sic] from the audience was great." The 
Beneficiary's debut of a new film at is also mentioned briefly in a posting at 
a press release distribution service, and in online blog. The 
aforementioned news releases and blog posting, however, do not demonstrate that his film has 
garnered a distinguished reputation. 
The record also includes a 2016 article, entitled " 
newspaper. The same article appears in 
that is distributed with 
the 1 year filmmaking course in the 
work.'' Both submissions list 
This article promoting 
reputation of" 
in a Brazilian daily 
magazine, a weekly entertainment guide for 
newspaper. This article states that "took 
and that · is "her tirst 
and email contact information. 
early career IS not sufficient to show the distinguished 
4 
.
Matter ofW-C-
The Petitioner also offers an 2016 article from a daily newspaper in 
New York. This local news coverage discusses the success ofthe m 
the community and then lists multiple award recipients, including '· for 
The article, however, is insufficient to demonstrate that · 
has earned a distinguished reputation. 
With respect to the three Japanese hip hop artists' music videos for which the Beneficiary served as 
director of photography, the Petitioner provides webpages indicating that music IS 
available for viewing or purchase on and 
In addition, the Petitioner submits an artist profile of available at 
an webpage reflecting that the Beneficiary performed cinematography for 
video ' a free digital download otTer from webpage, and an 
webpage indicating that the Beneficiary was director of photography for 
music video. The aforementioned documentation. however. does not demonstrate that 
the music videos shot by the Beneficiary have a distinguished reputation. 
For the reasons discussed above. we find that the Petitioner has not submitted critical reviews. 
advertisements, publicity releases, publications or other evidence demonstrating that the 
Beneficiary's past music videos and films have a distinguished reputation. Furthermore, in addition 
to his past positions, this criterion requires that the Beneficiary "'will perform" services as a lead or 
starring participant in productions or events with a distinguished reputation. As set forth in the 
petition and the deal memos, the Beneficiary will provide services for ' ,, 
and' The record. 
however, does not show that these prospective productions have a distinguished reputation. In light 
of the above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary satisfies the requirements of 
this evidentiary criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has achieved national or international recoKmlwn fhr 
achievements evidenced by critical reviews or other published materials hy or about the 
individual in major newspapers, trade journals. magazines. or other publications. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(2). 
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner submitted an article entitled ' 
·in The 
aforementioned article also appears in magazine, a weekly entertainment guide distributed 
with newspaper. Although the Petitioner provided documentation indicating that 
is a major Brazilian newspaper, he did not offer circulation evidence for to demonstrate 
that it qualifies as a major magazine. In addition, the Petitioner submits information from TYikipedia 
about but the documentation does not establish that this newspaper's online visitors and 
readership numbers elevate it to a form of major media. 2 Regardless, the article that appears in these 
2 We note that, with respect to information from Wikipedia, there are no assurances about the reliability of the content 
.
Matter r?f W-C-
publications is about rather than the Beneficiary, and only references him once. The 
plain language of the regulatory criterion requires ··published materials by or about the individual.·· 
Articles that are not by or about the Beneficiary do not meet this regulatory criterion. C( Negro­
Plumpe v. Okin. 2:07-CV -00820 at * L *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 2008) (upholding a finding that articles 
about a show are not about the actor). 
The Petitioner also provides an article entitled ' 
[sic] from a press release distribution website. In addition. he offers 
webpages from 
and 
The record, however, does not demonstrate that the aforementioned websites 
are major newspapers, trade journals, magazines, or other publications. Furthermore. several of the 
aforementioned webpages are not about the Beneficiary. For example. the material from 
includes only the Beneficiary's photograph and the webpage from 
lists just the phrase ' [the Beneficiary]" with no further 
content about him. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary meets this 
evidentiary criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has perfhrmed. and will perform. in a lead. starring or critical 
role fhr organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation 
evidenced by articles in new.\papers. trade journals. publications. or testimonials. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(3). 
The Petitioner maintains on appeal that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion based upon his leading 
or critical roles for 
and however, is an individual rather than an organization or 
establishment, and the Petitioner has not identified a specific organization or establishment 
associated with her.4 While the record includes information about several individuals who work for 
the aforementioned companies (such as their profiles and film festival participation). the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated through the submission of articles in newspapers, trade journals. 
publications, or testimonials that the above organizations have a distinguished reputation. 
from this open, user-edited Internet site. See Laamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey. 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). 
3 After identifying these organizations and the Petitioner's brief also discusses the Beneficiary's roles for 
and three Japanese hip hop artists' music videos. The Beneficiary's 
role in the aforementioned film and music video productions is more relevant to the "'lead or starring participant in 
productions or events which have a distinguished reputation'' category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. ~ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)( !). a 
separate and distinct criterion under which this documentation has already been addressed. Consistent with the plain 
language of the regulations and the requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria, we generally do not 
consider ''productions or events'' as constituting "organizations or establishments." Regardless, as we previously 
detailed, the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Beneficiary's aforementioned film and music video 
productions have earned a distinguished reputation. 
4 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires that the beneficiary ''has performed. and will pertorm. in a lead. 
starring, or critical role for organizations and establishments'' (emphasis added). 
.
Matter of W-C-
Furthermore, 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 beneficiary's impact on the organization or the establishment's activities. Although the 
Petitioner provided testimonial letters, deal memos, and other documentation indicating that the 
Beneficiary's roles as director of photography and cinematographer may be categorized as providing 
leading or critical services for particular films and individual productions on behalf of the above 
companies, the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate that his roles are leading. starring, or critical 
for those organizations overall. 5 
For example, the Petitioner provides two letters and a deal memo from 
president of March 2016 letter and the deal memo state that 
the Beneficiary will serve as director of photography for the production · The 
documentation does not specify how the Beneficiary's position tits into the hierarchy of the 
aforementioned company to show that it is a leading role, clarify how his work will be critical to the 
success and standing of the organization, or suggest the manner in which his work will result in a 
measurable level of success for In addition, the evidence does not demonstrate 
whether the Beneficiary has previously worked in a director of photography role for this company, 
how his role differentiates him from the organization· s other photographers, or how the company 
progressed while the Beneficiary worked there. 
Aside from not demonstrating that the Beneficiary has performed, and will perfom1. in a lead. staJTing. 
or critical role for the Petitioner has failed to show that this organization 
has a distinguished reputation. The record includes profile and articles from the 
and 
websites discussing short films, but these documents do not 
offer information about or its level of distinction. The Petitioner also submits an 
event program for screening of ' which states that he created "the 
in 2011 and produced several short films. 6 There is no mention. 
however, of or its reputation in the motion picture industry. As the Petitioner 
does not provide additional evidence or information showing the company's distinguished 
reputation, he has not established that the Beneficiary's involvement with meets 
this criterion. 
In addition, the Petitioner submits letters and deal memos from 
and 
photography for the productions 
stating that the Beneficiary will serve as director of 
and 
The record reflects that the aforementioned production companies 
5 
The supporting evidence submitted under this criterion mainly relates to the three companies discussed below: 
and 
"The Beneficiary served as "1st assistant camera" for film · while was the 
''Director of Photography." The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary's role for this film was leading or 
critical. 
.
Matter of W-C-
co-produced ' According to this film· s profile offered by the Petitioner. the 
Beneficiary served as "first assistant camera'' while performed the 
cinematography. The aforementioned documents, however, do not demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
has performed, or will perform, in a lead, starring, or critical role for 
and overall. 
The record also includes articles from and the Pennsylvania) 
announcing that ' is set to begin filming in Central Pennsylvania. The aforementioned articles about 
are insufficient to show that and 
have garnered a distinguished reputation in the industry based on some media coverage surrounding their 
unreleased film. Additionally, the Petitioner submits biographies for leadership team 
from the company's website and webpages relating to pre- and post-
production projects. USC IS need not rely on this self-promotional material. Cf Braga v. Poulos. No. CV 06 5105 
SJO, qff'd 317 Fed. Appx. 680 (C.A.9). The Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the 
aforementioned production companies enjoy a distinguished reputation. As previously noted. the plain language 
of this criterion requires the submission of evidence in the form of newspapers, trade journals. publications. or 
testimonials. In light of the above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary satisfies the 
requirements of this evidentiary criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has received significant recognition for achievements .fi"om 
organizations. critics. government agencies. or other recognized experts in the .field 
in which the alien is engaged. Such testimonials must he in a form which clearly 
indicates the author's authority, expertise, and knowledge of the alien's 
achievements. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(5) 
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner provided several reference letters. The Director 
considered the letters and concluded that, although they discussed the Beneficiary's projects and 
skills as a cinematographer, they were insufficient to establish that his work has received significant 
recognition for achievements in the field. Specifically, the Director noted that the Petitioner had not 
shown that the Beneficiary's work has been recognized beyond his coworkers and former employers. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that Director disregarded the "expert opinions acknowledging the 
fact that the beneficiary has received significant recognition in the field of cinematography." He 
further contends that "the impact of the letters of support is highly significant as their authors are not 
only renowned experts in the field of motion picture and television ... but also they have direct and 
first-hand knowledge of [the Beneficiary's] achievements.'' 
The record includes letters of support from various individuals who have participated in projects f(w 
which the Beneficiary's served as a director of photography or cameraman. 7 For example, 
chair of the filmmaking department at asserts that the Beneficiary has demonstrated 
7 
We discuss only a sampling of these letters, but have reviewed and considered each one. 
.
Matter of W-C-
"unique artistic vision, resourcefulness and exceptional cinematographic skills."'8 further 
indicates that they "worked together on filming the series of interviews for to appear on 
and that the Beneficiary "has been able to achieve outstanding results during all phases of 
the production process." In addition, a film and television actor. states that he met the 
Beneficiary during the production of' ·and that he "was impressed with [the Beneficiary's J 
professional attitude and charisma" and "leadership and management skills." also notes 
that the Beneficiary's "extraordinary ability helped the production to move faster between setups and 
execute incredibly challenging focus pulls." 
The Petitioner otTers another letter from a director of photography and member of 
the who '·worked with [the Beneficiary] on a feature tilm shoot 
in titled indicates that the Beneficiary ''did 
several challenging camera and lens tests, prepared the gear for the shoot, [and] he was also responsible 
for delivering high quality image to the director on set and managing his crew." In further support of 
this criterion, the Petitioner provides a letter from the Beneficiary's former employer 
and "co-founder of based in Russia." states that the 
Beneficiary ''played a leading role in directing and filming behind the scenes ... on a number of 
commercial shoots. The job requires a set of technical and creative skills like knowing camera and 
camera gear, editing and color grading software." 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a letter from a music video director. indicating that he 
and the Beneficiary worked together on the music video ' · by 
explains that the Beneficiary handled "lighting and operating the camera'' and that he ''was instrumental 
in the overall look and quality of the video." Additionally, mentions awards received by the 
Beneficiary's films such as the award won by · for 
9 As previously noted, the Beneficiary's other films · and 
· won ' at the and 
,. at respectively. The Petitioner, however. 
does not include any supporting explanation or documentation with respect to the significance of the 
aforementioned awards and the context in which recipients are chosen. As such. we have no basis on 
which to conclude that such awards are evidence that the Beneficiary ''has received significant 
recognition for achievements." 
Upon review of the letters, we concur with the Director's determination that the Petitioner has not 
established that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. The authors do not attest to the Beneficiary's 
level of recognition beyond their own companies and organizations. nor do they explain in factual tenns 
his achievements in the field. The issue for this regulatory criterion is whether the Beneficiary has 
received significant recognition for achievements from organizations. critics. government agencies. or 
notes that he first met the Beneficiary at when he was a teaching assistant in the cinematography 
department. 
9 
The list of ''Full Cast & Crew" for"' contained in the record indicates that while the Beneficiary 
directed, wrote, and produced this film, the cinematography was performed by 
9 
.
Matter of W-C-
other recognized experts in the field. The record lacks documentary evidence showing that the 
Beneficiary has received such recognition. Based on the foregoing. the Petitioner has not submitted 
evidence that the Beneficiary meets this regulatory criterion. 
2. Petitioner's Argument that Consultations Demonstrate Extraordinary Achievement 
In his appeal brief~ the Petitioner contends he has demonstrated the Beneficiary" s extraordinary 
achievement through his submission of consultations from the 
and the 
as required under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(5). He asserts that the Beneficiary's 
"eligibility for an 0-1 visa has been recognized by the and stating that ''[t]he 
favorable advisory opinions are only issued for beneficiaries who are able to demonstrate 
extraordinary achievement in their field of expertise and [the Beneficiary] was approved by both 
organizations." 
While the submitted consultations meet the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(5). the regulations 
also require evidence satisfying the regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(A)-(B). As 
discussed above, the Petitioner has not provided such evidence. Further. the consultation authors do 
not address whether the Beneficiary meets the relevant evidentiary criteria demonstrating 
extraordinary achievement. Rather, expresses that has ""no objections to the 
granting of a temporary 0-1 visa." Similarly, while states that ''the beneficiary has a 
history of extraordinary achievement" and that supports ''the granting of an 0-1 visa for the 
beneficiary,'' she does not specify which of the regulatory criteria which his achievements satisfy. 
Moreover, neither consultation details what particular evidence they reviewed in issuing their letters. 
Regardless, consultations are advisory and are not binding on us. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(5)(i)(D). It 
remains the Petitioner's burden to provide the specific documentation mandated by the regulations in 
addition to the consultations. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence for the Beneficiary under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(A) or that he meets at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B). Accordingly, 
the Petitioner has not established the Beneficiary's eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter qf W-C-, ID# 613312 (AAO Oct. 12. 20 17) 
10