dismissed O-1B Case: Film And Video Production

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF K-!P-. LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 28.2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129. PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner. a film and video production and post production company. seeks to classify the 
Beneficiary as a foreign national of extraordinary ability in the arts. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act)§ 10l(a)(15)(0)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i). This 0-1 classification 
makes nonimmigrant visas available to foreign nationals who can demonstrate their extraordinary 
ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been 
recognized in the field through extensive documentation. 
The Petitioner requests that the Beneficiary be granted 0-1 classification so that he may work as a 
producer and editor. The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director 
concluded that the Petitioner did not satisfy the evidentiary requirements applicable to a foreign 
national of extraordinary ability in the arts. and that it did not submit the required consultations for a 
foreign national of extraordinary achievement. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal. the Petitioner submits additional 
documentation and asserts that the Director erred in her consideration of the evidence. Upon de 
novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. PERTINENT LAW AND REGULATIONS 
Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act provides classification to a qualified foreign national who has 
extraordinary ability in the sciences. arts, education, business. or athletics \Vhich 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. The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) 
provides, in pertinent part: 
Arts includes any field of creative activity or endeavor such as. but not limited to. tine 
arts, visual arts, culinary arts. and performing arts .... 
Extraordinary ability in the field l?l arts means distinction. Distinction means a high 
level of achievement in the field of arts evidenced by a degree of skill and recognition 
Matter of K-!P-. LLC 
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. 
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)(iv) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can 
demonstrate a beneficiary's recognition in the field through documentation that the beneficiary has 
been nominated for, or is the recipient of_ significant national or international mvards 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)(iv)(A). If a petitioner does not provide this information. then that petitioner 
must satisfy at least three of the six categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(J)-(6). If a 
petitioner shows that certain criteria in paragraph (o)(3)(iv)(B) ofthis section do not readily apply to 
the beneficiary's occupation, that petitioner may submit comparable evidence in order to establish 
the beneficiary's eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(C). 
The satisfaction of 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). 
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 atliant 
acquired such information. 
Further. the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii) provides that petitions for 0 foreign nationals 
shall be accompanied by the following: 
(A) The evidence specified in the particular section for the classification; 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of K-!P-, LLC 
(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 end 
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. 
Regarding the required advisory opinion from a consulting entity, consultation with a peer group in 
the area of the beneficiary's ability (which may include a labor organization), or a person or persons 
with expertise in that area, is required for an individual of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(5)(ii)(A). If the 0-1 petition is for an individual with extraordinary achievement in 
motion picture or television, the petitioner must provide consultations from an appropriate labor 
union and a management organization with expertise in the beneficiary's area of ability. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(5)(iii). 
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
The Petitioner filed the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, and supporting 
documentation on October 17, 2014. The Director issued a request for additional evidence (RFE) on 
October 29, 2014. to which the Petitioner replied. The Petitioner also submits a brief and additional 
evidence on appeal. We have considered the record in its entirety in reaching this decision. 
The Petitioner explained in an introductory letter that it is "a film and video pre/post production 
company founded and managed by a television and radio host who also started a 
nonprofit foundation relating to breast cancer. According to the record, the Petitioner intends for the 
Beneficiary to work as a producer, field producer, and editor for several television, radio, DVD. and 
webcast productions. The event dates range from February 1, 2015, through December 15, 20 17. 
In addition to documentation about its founder, the Petitioner provided evidence relating 
to the Beneficiary's credentials and background. The evidence ret1ects that the Beneficiary has a 
certificate in entertainment studies and the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in communications. 
The record includes copies of published material about two music videos he co-directed, copies of 
articles about the bands that performed in the music videos, documentation regarding award 
nominations for the two music videos, and reference letters discussing the Beneficiary's work as a 
producer and photographer for a documentary about individuals with hemophilia among other 
projects. The Petitioner also submitted consultations from a non-profit artists' 
organization, and the 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter (?f K-!P-, LLC 
III. ANALYSIS 
The two issues to be addressed in this matter are ( 1) whether the Petitioner documented that the 
Beneficiary satisfies the evidentiary requirements for classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability in the arts, and (2) whether the Petitioner submitted the appropriate consultation as required 
by the regulations. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
If a 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 field 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A), then it will meet its burden of production with respect to 
the beneficiary's eligibility for 0-1 classification. The regulations cite to an Academy, Em my or 
Grammy Award. ld. The Petitioner in this instance has not indicated or established that the 
Beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award. Therefore, the Petitioner must 
satisfy at least three ofthe six evidentiary criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). We will 
address these criteria below.1 
Evidence that the alien has pe!:f'ormed, and will perfhrm, 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 
The plain language of this criterion requires a petitioner to show that the foreign national has not 
only performed services as a lead or starring participant in productions or events with a distinguished 
reputation in the past, but also that he will do so in the future. The Director determined that the 
Petitioner did not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(J) because. although the 
Beneficiary performed these services in the past, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary 
will perform services as a lead or starring participant in productions or events with a distinguished 
reputation in the future. We agree with the Director's findings. 
The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary will be involved with its productions as follows: as 
field producer and editor for the television series · as field 
producer for the DVD ' as field producer for the 
webcast series as field producer and editor of '"spots'' on 
and as producer and editor for the radio show On appeal. the Petitioner contends 
that these productions ''derive their distinguished reputation'' from the Petitioner" s founder. 
The record includes copies of web pages from website and account as 
well as copies of two articles in Spanish (with translations) from the website of a publication of 
the The statements from websites are not objective and therefore 
carry little weight without supporting evidence. The articles, both of which are dated 
2013, introduce as a "new program" and include quotes 
1 The Petitioner does not assert that it satisfies the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this decision. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of K-!P-, LLC 
regarding its format and content from 
television and radio presenter." 
who is described in one article as a --reno-wned 
The regulations require documentation to establish the distinguished reputation of the productions or 
events in which the Beneficiary will play a role. Accordingly, statements and evidence regarding the 
reputation of are not sufficient. While the Petitioner did submit articles reflecting 
publicity for one of the programs on which the Beneficiary will work, the articles do not indicate or 
establish that the program has a distinguished reputation. We therefore find that the evidence does 
not demonstrate the distinguished reputation of the relevant productions. 
Further. the record does not establish that the Beneficiary's performance in the above productions 
will be •·as a lead or starring participant." The record includes little information about his proposed 
function on each production beyond his job titles. On appeal, the Petitioner states that the work of a 
producer, field producer. or editor is '·an inseparable component of the show creation," and that 
without such work '·there can be no show." While the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary's role 
is essential to the production, it does not necessarily follow that this role is considered ·']ead or 
starring.'' We note that unlike the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(J), the instant criterion 
does not include the term --critical" in describing the beneficiary's role. As evidence that 
''occupations in picture editing have been recognized as of leading or critical nature by the Emmy 
awards.'' the Petitioner submits a printout from Wikipedia listing as among the 
categories of Emmy awards. We will not assign weight to information from Wikipedia, which is an 
open, user-edited Internet site with no assurances about the reliability of its content. See Laamilem 
Badasa v. Michaellvfukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). Regardless. even assuming that Emmy 
awards are presented for this type of position, the Petitioner has not explained how this establishes 
that the position constitutes a ·'lead or starring'' role in a production. 
For the reasons discussed above, we find that the Petitioner has not satisfied the regulatory criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(l). 
Evidence that the alien has achieved national or international recognition fhr 
achievements evidenced by critical reviews or other published materials by or about 
the individual in major neH·.~papers. trade journals, magazines, or other publications 
The Director determined that the petitioner did not satisfy the evidentiary requirements of this 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2). In general. in order for published material to 
demonstrate national or international recognition, it must be about the Beneficiary and be printed in 
major newspapers, magazines or other major publications with significant national or international 
distribution. 
The Petitioner provided an article from magazine dated 2013. about the Venezuelan 
music group and their music video, The article features an 
interview with the musicians and the directors of the video, and it identifies the Beneficiary as one of 
the two directors at the beginning of the article. While the Petitioner attests that is an iconic 
digital youth oriented magazine in Venezuela and across Latin America, the record does not include 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of K-!P-. LLC 
sufficient documentation to support that statement. Statements made without supporting 
documentation are of limited probative value and are not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of 5,'(dfici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm ·r 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Crafi (~l Cal!fornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). The 
Petitioner provided evidence regarding the reputation and circulation of magazine. which it 
contends is a comparable English-language publication. Regardless of any claimed similarities in 
content and target audience between the Petitioner has not established that they enjoy 
a similar reputation or distribution. Accordingly, we find the evidence insufficient to demonstrate 
that the article in represents national or international recognition of the Beneficiary's work on 
the music video. 
Additionally, the Petitioner has provided articles announcing the release of · and a 
second music video co-directed by the Beneficiary, by the Venezuelan 
band The articles are from publications and websites including, but not limited to 
_ While many of these announcements name the Beneficiary as one of the 
directors of the video, they are not publications "by or about" the Beneficiary as required by the 
regulation. The articles do not recognize the Beneficiary's individual achievements or the 
national/international recognition he received for such achievements. In addition, the record does 
not include sufficient circulation data or other documentation about the publications and websites to 
establish that they represent national or international recognition. The Petitioner provided 
circulation information for from the website which indicated that Is 
ranked in Venezuela for website traffic. However. the Petitioner did not explain how being 
ranked in Venezuela demonstrates that is a major national publication source. 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)(iv)(B)(2). 
Evidence that the alien has performed. and will pe1:form. in a lead. starrinR. or 
critical rolefor organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation 
evidenced by articles in ne·wspapers. 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)(iv)(B)(3). The 
Director found that the Beneficiary did perform such a role in the past, but that the Petitioner did not 
satisfy the evidentiary requirements of this criterion because it did not establish that he will perform 
in a lead, starring, or critical role for organizations and establishments with a distinguished 
reputation in the future. 
Regarding the Beneficiary's prospective work, the Petitioner has demonstrated that his position as a 
producer and editor on its television shows, DVD, web series, and radio show qualifies as a critical 
role for the company. As noted above. the Petitioner indicates on appeal that this role is essential to 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of K-!P-. LLC 
its productions. However. the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the 
Petitioner has a distinguished reputation. Although the Petitioner has provided documentation 
regarding its founder. as discussed previously. this documentation is insufficient to establish the 
distinguished reputation of the organization itself. The only published articles about in the 
record were the aforementioned articles from which do not mention the name of the petitioning 
production company. 
Further, we will withdraw the Director's finding regarding the Beneficiary's past performance in a 
lead, starring. or critical role. As evidence of such performance. the Petitioner provided letters 
regarding the Beneficiary's work on a documentary for the 
which was funded by and The 
Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary played a '"leading and crucial role in the project" as its creator. 
producer, and photographer, and it submitted documentation relating to the reputation of the 
sponsoring organizations. The submitted testimonials support the Petitioner's statements regarding 
the importance of Beneficiary's role in the documentary. They do not demonstrate. however. that 
his work on that single project constituted a lead. starring. or critical role for the organizations 
themselves as required under the regulation. 
The Petitioner also submitted a copy of a 2014 job offer letter and a testimonial from 
a Spanish-language television network in California. The testimonial 
discusses the Beneficiary's past work as a producer and technical director on _ 
stating that he was .. a great asset to the production team'' and his work 
'·influenced the project in a very positive way.'' These statements do not establish that the 
Beneficiary played a lead, starring, or critical role at In addition. while the 
Petitioner provided information about from the Wikipedia website. we find this 
documentation insufficient to demonstrate the distinguished reputation of the organization. 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)(iv)(B)(3). 
Evidence that the alien has a record of major commercial or critically acclaimed 
successes as evidenced hy such indicators as title. rating. standing in the field. hox 
(~f]ice receipts, motion picture or television ratings, and other occupational 
achievements reported in trade journals, major newspapers. or other publications 
In order to satisfy the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(-I). the Petitioner must 
submit evidence that the Beneficiary has a record of major commercial or critically acclaimed 
successes as evidenced by such indicators as title, rating. standing in the field. box office receipts, 
motion picture or television ratings. and other occupational achievements reported in trade journals. 
major newspapers, or other publications. The Director found that the Beneficiary did not meet this 
criterion. We will withdraw the Director' finding on this issue. 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary co-directed two music videos 
that were nominated for the m Venezuela in demonstrating his 
commercial successes. Specifically, was nominated for the Best 
(b)(6)
Matter of K-! P-. LLC 
Video of the Year and was nominated as the Best Video of the Year. 
The Petitioner submitted documentation from the website, with translation. 
Additionally, the Petitioner submitted articles about the band that performed 
from the websites Wikipedia and and letters from 
Manager for and Production Executive for 
which discuss the success of The Petitioner also provided 
pages from several websites stating that this video was the first by a Venezuelan band to be 
commercialized on an worldwide. We find the record sufficient to demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary's music video was a commercial or critically-acclaimed 
success. 
We note, however, that we do not find the evidence sufficient to establish that . 
also became a commercial or critically-acclaimed success. While was nominated 
for a , the Petitioner did not provide evidence to establish the significance of this 
nomination or the _ generally. In addition, the two news articles about 
m magazine and which carry little evidentiary weight for the reasons 
provided in our discussion of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2), do not demonstrate 
commercial or critically-acclaimed success of that video. The Petitioner also provided a printout 
from indicating that had 49,730 hits, but there was no explanation of 
how such evidence indicates a commercial or critically-acclaimed success of the Beneficiary's 
") 
work.~ 
As discussed above, the Petitioner has satisfied the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o )(3 )(iv)(B)( 4) based on the success of his music video 
Evidence that the alien has received signfficant 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 
The Director found that the record established that the Beneficiary meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5), but did not specifically discuss or identify the evidence upon which this 
conclusion was based. Upon review of the record we withdraw the Director's determination. 
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner provided testimonial letters from various colleagues 
and acquaintances of the Beneficiary. While these letters praise the Beneficiary's abilities and his 
work on individual projects, they do not demonstrate significant recognition outside of his circle of 
2 In addition, the Petitioner provided letters. discussed previously, regarding the Beneficiary's \vork on the documentary 
his work on at However, while letters state that the 
documentary was screened at the in Argentina, the record docs not include 
supporting evidence demonstrating that either of these projects were major commercial or critically acclaimed successes. 
Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter (~lK-!P-, LLC 
contacts or explain how his achievements to date have received significant recogmtiOn from 
organizations, critics, government agencies, or other recognized experts in the field.3 
For instance, project manager at praised the Beneficiary's work on the 
documentary and stated that his photographs from the project were .. sent to the 
press and distributed internationally to hemophilia organizations all over the world." He did not 
however, indicate that the Beneficiary's work on the documentary or photographs had been 
recognized by organizations, critics, agencies, or experts in his field. In addition, 
director of stated that he worked with the Beneficiary on the music video for 
and was impressed with his vision, approach and innovative ideas. While he discussed 
the success of the video, he did not explain whether the Beneficiary had received significant 
recognition for the project. 
In another letter, a scriptwriter and television director, indicated that he is 
familiar with the Beneficiary's work through his previous collaborations with the Beneficiary's 
father. He stated that the Beneficiary's .. creative growth in the entertainment field is rapid and 
admirable," and that "his up and corning professional audiovisual work 
provides a solid foundation 
for social contribution in the entertainment field.'' These statements indicate 
favorable assessment of the Beneficiary's abilities and potential, but do not demonstrate that he has 
already received significant recognition for his work. For the reasons discussed above, we find that 
the letters, considered in the context of the totality of the evidence submitted, do not satisfy this 
criterion. 
As noted above, the documentation provided does not satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 
214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A), or at least three of the three required criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). The Petitioner has therefore not established that the Beneficiary qualities for 
classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
B. Consultation 
The remaining issue to be discussed is whether the Petitioner satisfied the relevant regulatory 
requirements regarding advisory opinions from consulting entities. The Petitioner initially submitted 
a consultation letter from a peer group, a non-profit artists' organization called . The 
Director found that this letter .. satisfies the consultation requirement for an individual of 
extraordinary ability in the arts." She stated, however, that as the Beneficiary ""will also be working 
on a television production,'' the Petitioner is required to submit consultations from an appropriate 
labor union and from a management organization. On appeaL the Petitioner submits a consultation 
letter 
from the 
We will withdraw the Director's findings on this issue. The regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(5)(iii) 
requires letters from an appropriate labor union and 
a management organization when a petitioner 
seeks to classify a beneficiary as an individual with extraordinary achievement in motion picture or 
3 We discuss only a sampling of these letters, but have reviewed and considered each one. 
9 
Matter of K-!P-. LLC 
television. In this instance, however, the Petitioner indicated in response to the Director's request 
for evidence that it seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an individual of extraordinary ability in the 
arts. Accordingly, we find the Petitioner satisfied the relevant regulatory requirements at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(5)(ii). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Beneficiary has not been nominated for or received a qualifying award under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A) and the record does not satisfy at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). Consequently, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is eligible 
for classification as a foreign national with extraordinary ability in the arts. 
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, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofK-!P-, LLC, ID# 16221 (AAO Apr. 28, 2016) 
10