dismissed O-1B Case: Film

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 15465639 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 6, 2021 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability - 0) 
The Petitioner, a motion picture production company , seeks to classify the Beneficiary , a film director , 
as an individual with a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or 
television industry . To do so, the Petitioner seeks 0-1 nonimmigrant classification , available to foreign 
nationals whose achievements in this industry 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. 
§ l 101(a)(15)(O)(i). 
The Petitioner currently employ s the Beneficiary yursuantl to an approved 0-1 petition and indicates 
he will be engaged in a new motion picture project for a period of three years. The Director 
of the California Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the Petitioner did not submit , as 
required, an explanation of the terms of the Beneficiary's employment , the nature of the events or 
activitie s, and the beginning and ending dates for the event s or activities . 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(2)(ii)(B)-(C). In addition, the Director determined that the documentation provided did not 
establish sufficiently that the Petitioner is a bona fide United States employer. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the evidence provided satisfies the regulatory requirements. We 
note that on the Form I-290B , Notice of Appeal or Motion, counsel indicated that he would submit a brief 
and/or additional evidence to us within 30 days. The appeal was filed in September 2020 . As of this 
date, no brief or additional evidence has been incorporated into the record of proceeding, and the record 
will be considered complete . 
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 10l(a)(l5)(O)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C . § l 10l(a)(l5)(O)(i), provides classification 
to a qualified beneficiary 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)(l)(i) provides that under section 101(a)(l5)(O) of the Act, a 
qualified alien may be authorized to come to the United States to perform services relating to an event or 
events if petitioned for by an employer. 
An 0-1 petition "may only be filed by a United States employer, a United States agent, or a foreign 
employer through a United States agent," and must be accompanied by: 
(A) The evidence specified in the particular section for the classification; 
(B) Copies of any written contracts between the petitioner and the alien beneficiary or, if 
there is no written contract, a summary of the terms of the oral agreement under 
which the alien will be employed; 
(C) An explanation of the nature of the events, or activities, the beginning and ending 
dates for the events or activities, and a copy of any itinerary for the events or 
activities; and 
(D) A written advisory opinion(s) from the appropriate consulting entity or entities. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(i)-(ii). Further, "[a] petition which requires the alien to work in more than one 
location must include an itinerary with the dates and locations of work." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(iv)(A). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the documentation submitted did not explain sufficiently the terms of 
the Beneficiary's employment, the nature of his proposed events or activities, and the beginning and 
ending dates for the events or activities pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(B)-(C). 
On the Form 1-129, the Petitioner provided that the Beneficiary will be employed on a foll-time basis 
as a film director and requested a three-year approval period. It also stated that the Beneficiary's 
wages were set forth in the submitted deal memo and indicated "unknown" for "other compensation." 
In a letter }rovided in support of the petition, the Petitioner explained that "[t]he development stage 
fo~~-~is due to begin in April 2020 with pre-production and principal photography to commence 
in September 2021." 
The Petitioner submitted a deal memo dated March 25, 2020, signed by the parties which provides, in 
relevant part: 
1. Role: Director 
2. Start Date - Services: On or about April 11, 2020, to commence development 
services, with an anticipated start of principal photography ... September 2021, 
with services including pre-production, production, post-production, publicity and 
press with the release of the picture lasting through December 2022. 
3. Compensation: 5% of the bonded production budget for the Picture, but in all 
events no less than the DGA minimum plus 10%, plus 5% of the net profits 
(definition of terms and conditions to be negotiated in good faith). 
2 
4. Shooting Location: TBD 
5. Transportation/Accommodations: Air Transportation, accommodations, per diem 
and local transportation to be provided. 
The Director's request for evidence (RFE) asked the Petitioner to submit written contracts or 
summaries of oral agreements detailing the terms and conditions of the Beneficiary's employment, 
including documentation that would"[ s ]pecify the wage offered and explain the terms and conditions 
under which the beneficiary will perform these services." The RFE also requested an explanation of 
the nature of the events or activities in which the Beneficiary will participate, the beginning and ending 
dates of those events, and a copy of any event itinerary showing the dates and locations where services 
will be performed. The Director noted that although the petition requested a validity period of April 
2020 through April 2023, the submitted deal memo indicated the proposed period of the Beneficiary's 
employment was between April 2020 and December 2022. Further, the Director stated that "a public 
records search was unable to verify that you are an existing entity and valid employer." 
Within the Petitioner's RFE response, it provided an amended deal memo, also dated March 25, 2020, 
that provides revised dates of services ending in April 2023, compensation of $3,000,000, and shooting 
locations in ~----------Various Locations." The Petitioner did not address the 
Director's request to verify that it is "an existing entity and valid employer." 1 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner's submission of conflicting 
information regarding the terms of the Beneficiary's services, specifically regarding the Beneficiary's 
proposed period of employment and compensation, raises questions regarding its status as a bona fide 
employer. Although the Petitioner asserts on appeal that the "corrected" deal memo "contained all the 
required terms including the term of employment and the salary," the Petitioner's admission that 
inaccurate information and documentation was submitted in support of the petition provides sufficient 
grounds to affirm the denial of the petition. 
In addition, although not discussed in the Director's decision, the Petitioner has not met its burden to 
provide an itinerary. As mentioned previously, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(C), which 
lists the required evidence for all 0-1 visa petitions, mandates that all petitions must include "[ a ]n 
explanation of the nature of the events or activities, the beginning and ending dates for the events or 
activities, and a copy of any itinerary for the events or activities." In addition, the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(iv)(A) states that "a petition which requires the alien to work in more than one 
location must include an itinerary with the dates and locations of work." The Petitioner indicated on 
the petition that the Beneficiary will work for it off-site at another company or organization's location. 
Although the Petitioner also indicated that it included an itinerary with the petition, the record does 
not contain an itinerary of dates and locations the Beneficiary will work during the requested validity 
period. The appeal will be dismissed on this additional basis. 
1 The Petitioner's RFE response also provided updated consultations from the Director's Guild of America, Inc. (DGA) 
and the Alliance of Motion Picture & Television Producers (AMPTP). The Director's RFE had acknowledged receipt of 
consultations from DGA and AMPTP but noted that they were dated 2017; those consultations pertained to the 
Beneficiary's work on the feature fil~ I 
3 
Further, as discussed previously, the Director raised concerns regarding the bona fides of the 
Petitioner's employment offer to the Beneficiary. On appeal the Petitioner asserts that it, "like many 
others in the filmmaking industry, is an LLC created for only one purpose, film production. These 
production companies often are not publicly listed and usually only exist until the film is made and 
then distributed by a major company." The record does not contain, however, any information about 
the petitioning film production company. The Director's concern that the Petitioner might be a shell 
company, or a marginal or inactive company, established in order for the Beneficiary to freelance on 
the open market or pursue undefined or speculative employment opportunities in the United States is 
legitimate. Specifically, as noted by the Director, a petitioner is required to show that an 0-1 
beneficiary is entering the United States for definite, non-speculative employment associated with the 
beneficiary's extraordinary ability by submitting an itinerary or a specific explanation of the events or 
act1v1t1es scheduled for the beneficiary. Section 214(a)(2)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(2)(ii)(C). 2 The record does not contain evidence sufficient to establish that the petitioning 
company is a bona fide business entity formed for legitimate business purposes which has made a 
bona fide offer of employment to the Beneficiary. As discussed previously, the Petitioner has not 
submitted an itinerary and explained sufficiently the terms of the Beneficiary's employment and his 
proposed work to establish that the Beneficiary is coming to the United States to complete specific 
projects in his field of expertise, pursuant to a bona fide offer of employment. The appeal will be 
dismissed on this additional basis. 
Finally, the record indicates that USCIS has previously approved at least one petition for 0-1 status filed 
by the Petitioner on behalf of the Beneficiary. Prior approvals do not preclude USCIS from denying an 
extension of the original visa based on reassessment of the petitioner's or beneficiary's qualifications. 
Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004). Each 
nonimmigrant petition filing is a separate proceeding with a separate record and a separate burden of 
proof In making a determination of statutory eligibility, USCIS is limited to the information contained 
in that individual record of proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l6)(ii). In the present matter, the 
Director reviewed the record of proceeding and concluded that the Petitioner did not meet all eligibility 
requirements for the requested classification. Based on the lack of required evidence of eligibility in 
the current record, we find that the Director was justified in denying the instant petition. We are not 
required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated because of 
prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of Church Scientology International, 
19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). Further, our authority over the service centers is comparable 
to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has 
approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of the beneficiary, we are not be bound to follow the 
contradictory decision of a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 
2000 WL 282785, *l, *3 (E.D. La.), ajf'd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 
(2001). 
2 Further, discussing periods of admission for 0-1 nonimmigrant aliens, the INS noted that "[ a ]n 0-1 classification may 
not be granted to an alien to enter the United States to freelance in the open market. An 0-1 alien must be coming to the 
United States for specific events." 59 Fed. Reg. at 41822. The INS again emphasized the requirement that 0-1 aliens 
come to the United States to perform specific events, stating that "an 0 ... classification may not be granted to an alien 
merely to enter the United States to freelance and seek employment," but must only be "admitted to perform in specific 
events as detailed on the initial petition." Id. at 41828. 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not fulfilled the regulatory requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(B)­
(C) and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(iv)(A). Consequently, the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary is eligible 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. 
5