dismissed O-1B Case: Film Director

MATTER OF B-H-P-, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 14, 2016 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a motion picture production company, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an 
individual with a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or 
television industry. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(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, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the exhibits 
did not satisfy the evidentiary requirements applicable to foreign nationals of extraordinary 
achievement in the motion picture or television industry, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(A) (a 
significant national or international prize or award) or (B) (at least three of six possible forms of 
documentation). ' · 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and additional 
evidence and maintains that the Director erred in determining that the Beneficiary is not eligible for 
the classification sought. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(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 )(3 )(ii) clarifies, 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 field." 
Matter of B-H-P-, LLC 
The implementing 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 the beneficiary's 
nomination for, or the receipt of, significant national or international awards or prizes in the particular 
field such as an Academy Award, an Emmy, a Grarnmy, or a Director's Guild Award. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(A). If the petitioner does not offer this information, then that petitioner must 
submit sufficient qualifying exhibits that satisfy at least three of the six categories of evidence listed 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(1)-(6). 
The submission of documents relating to at least three criteria does not, in and of itself, establish 
eligibility for 0-1 classification. See 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." 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). That decision explains that, pursuant to 
the preponderance of the evidence standard, we "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:" !d. Accordingly, where a 
petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of the documentation shows a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement and 
establishes that the individual is recognized as outstanding, notable, or leading in the motion picture 
or television field. 
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. 
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; 
(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; 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of B-H-P-, LLC 
(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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Introduction 
The Petitioner filed the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, and supporting 
documentation, seeking to employ the Beneficiary as a Feature Film Director for a period of 
approximately seven weeks. According to the Beneficiary's curriculum vitae (CV), he has been 
working as a film director in Brazil since at least 2000, having founded the film and theater 
production company His CV listed 
directinglscreenwriting credits on 11 productions between 2000 and 2013 including the feature 
length films '(2009) and' '(2012). The CV also indicated that the 
Beneficiary has been a theater director, a drama/film professor at the and the 
head of the 
In its initial letter the Petitioner explained that it seeks to have the Beneficiary perform services as 
the director of the feature film It described the Beneficiary as 
having "international acclaim and achievements in the motion picture industry." The evidence 
submitted in support of the petition included the Petitioner's deal memo with the Beneficiary, the 
required consultations, and several testimonial letters. The Petitioner also provided articles and 
promotional materials pertaining to films the Beneficiary has directed, and information pertaining to 
film festivals in the United States and abroad at which the films have been screened. 
Preliminarily, the Petitioner maintains on appeal that we should view the Beneficiary's field of 
endeavor or field of expertise as "horror movies," because of the "marginalization of horror films 
within the motion-picture field." The Petitioner submits articles discussing why so few horror films 
have received best picture nominations at the Academy Awards. However, the Beneficiary's field is 
that of a motion picture director. As previously noted, within the initial petition filing, the Petitioner 
clearly indicated in the Form I-129, Part 5 that the Beneficiary's job title is that of a 'Feature Film 
Director." We are not persuaded by the Petitioner's attempt to narrow the Beneficiary's general field 
of motion picture directors down to directors of a specific genre. 
B. Extraordinary Achievement in the Motion Picture or Television Industry 
The sole issue addressed by the Director 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 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of B-H-P-, LLC 
categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(l)-(6). Iil denying the petition, the 
Director determined that the Petitioner did not claim to meet the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(A). Regarding the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(1)-(6), the Director 
discussed the submitted evidence and found that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary 
met 
these criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner does not contest the findings of the Director for the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(A) or (o)(3)(v)(B)(5) and (6), or offer additional relevant 
evidence or arguments, and we agree with the Director's findings on those issues. We will address 
the remaining criteria below. After careful review, the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner 
has overcome the grounds for denial. 
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 
The Director determined that the record does not satisfy the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(l). The Beneficiary's CV lists a total of 11 director credits between 2000 and 
2013. However, the record does not contain documentary evidence pertaining to the Beneficiary's 
role in the films ' 
(2000),"' 
(2013)," and ' 
Therefore, we will direct our attention to the Beneficiary's feature films and 
'' The Beneficiary's role as 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. Within its initial submission and response to the 
RFE, the Petitioner provided documentation that the Beneficiary's films were the official selection 
of various film festivals in the United States and abroad, and received various awards including, but 
not limited to: 
• (2013); 
• 1(2012); 
• 
')(2012); 
• (2012); 
• {2012); 
• 
)(2009); 
• 
{2009); 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of B-H-P-, LLC 
• 1(2009); 
and 
• 1(2009) . 
The scope and significance of these awards has not been explained or documented. The record 
contains information about the above festivals from their websites; material from the websites 
and ·published articles primarily 
related to the Beneficiary's work on the films and ' On 
appeal, the Petitioner provides letters from the organizers of two of the above festivals, and articles 
from and listing the premiere 
and the as "to die for" and in 
the "top 1 00." The Petitioner has not, however, submitted critical reviews, advertisements, publicity 
releases, publications or other evidence to establish the distinguished reputation of the film festivals. 
The Petitioner also submitted a positive review of ' published on the website 
,summarizing tht: film's plot, noting that it is the Beneficiary's debut feature film and 
praising it as "Brazilian bad-taste comedy" that is "ingenious enough to please . . . sophisticated horror 
fans." The review predicts that "the future looks bright for niche small screen sales, and for [the 
Beneficiary] in general." The review does not, however, establish the distinguished reputation of the 
film. Rather, the article reflects that the film has recently premiered and shows promise regarding its 
future sales. The record further contained a screenshot of Beneficiary's biographical page on the 
review aggregator website which identified him as the director of 
and the director/screenwriter of ' This document does not 
establish the distinguished reputation of those films. 
The Petitioner's initial submission also contained copies of the Beneficiary' s agreements with 
pertaining to the licensing rights for ' and ' 
and a letter from the company's executive producer, 
indicated that her company previously worked with the Beneficiary regarding his feature films and 
"had the rights of television viewing . . . with On appeal the Petitioner 
provides a screenshot from the website of indicating that the company is involved in 
the development of audiovisual content and the executive production/distribution of film/TV 
productions. The Petitioner has not provided documentary evidence relating to 
showing that it has been associated with distinguished productions in the past. 
In addition to his past positions, the Petitioner must establish 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 memo, the Beneficiary will work as a film director on the feature 
film ' Within its RFE response, the Petitioner submitted a page 
from the website of the indicating that in 2013 ' 
won the festival's Within the appeal brief the Petitioner avers that 
in 2013 the "same screenplay beat out over 5,000 scripts, advancing to the second round of the 
The record does not contain sufficient corroborating evidence for this 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of B-H-P-, LLC · 
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 
Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Cornm'r 1972)) Regardless, while the exhibits indicate that the Beneficiary 
will play a lead role in directing the film ' ' the submission does not 
establish that the upcoming film is a production or event that enjoys a distinguished reputation, as 
evidenced by critical reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, publications, contracts, or 
endorsements. Regarding the film's receipt ofthe 
in 2013, as previously discussed, although the record contains promotional materials from the 
festival's website, the Petitioner has not provided documentation establishing that the film festival 
has a distinguished reputation in the field. 
At the time the petition was filed, it appears that the project '' was in 
its nascent stages, and that investment for the project was secured later. On appeal, the Petitioner 
provides a copy of its campaign for the project published on the website 
The campaign contains a copy of a letter from 
confirming the intention of "to become [the Petitioner's] distributor in Latin American 
Territory," and stating that the company "will agree in good faith on contractual terms when [the 
Petitioner has] a rough cut of the film." It is not unusual for a distinguished motion picture or 
television production to generate press within the industry during pre-production, such as when it 
casts lead roles or hires a director. Here, although the record on appeal demonstrates that a 
production/distribution company has an interest in distributing the Beneficiary's film it does not 
establish the distinguished reputation of the project itself. Further, as discussed above, the Petitioner 
has not provided documentary evidence relating to the production company showing that it has been 
associated with distinguished productions in the past. We cannot conclude based on the limited 
evidence submitted that is of such renown that any project it considers placing into 
development can also be considered to have a distinguished reputation. Overall, the evidence does 
not establish that the Beneficiary will perform in a lead or starring role for productions or events 
which have a distinguished reputation. In light of the above, the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary satisfies the plain language requirements of this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has achieved national or international recognition for 
achievements evidenced by critical reviews or other published materials by or about the 
individual in major newspapers, trade journals, magazines, or other publications 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not satisfy the evidentiary requirements of the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(2). The Petitioner submitted the pages from the website 
for the films ' and " · and a review of ' 
published on the website On appeal, the Petitioner 
provides several press releases and articles from the Brazilian websites 
and showing that the Beneficiary's film " was screened 
in theaters and film festivals in Brazil in celebration of the anniversary of his production 
company, The Petitioner also submits an interview with the Beneficiary titled 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of B-H-P-, LLC 
published 
on the blog to accompany the short film's screening. In the interview the 
Beneficiary describes the film as a mockumentary of story ' 
He also discusses his film ' explaining how he adapted it from a stage play, 
recast the production, created a particular feel, and devised special promotional events including "an 
ongoing campaign." 
While some of the above-referenced published materials are about the Beneficiary, the Petitioner has 
not established that they were published in major publications, as required by the plain language of 
the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(2). The record does not contain sufficient evidence 
(such as objective circulation information or internet readership statistics from an independent source) 
showing the distribution or readership of these publications relative to other print or online media to 
demonstrate that these publications can be considered "major" newspapers or magazines.
1 
Finally, as discussed previously, the Petitioner has submitted a review of' published on 
the website The review summarizes the film's plot, noting that it is the Beneficiary's 
debut feature film and praising it as "Brazilian bad-taste comedy" that is "ingenious enough to please . 
. . sophisticated horror fans." The article predicts that "the future looks bright for niche small screen 
sales, and for [the Beneficiary] in general." Upon review, this article satisfies the plain language 
requirements of the criterion, ·and we therefore withdraw the Director's determination on this issue. 
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. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not satisfy the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(3). The Petitioner maintains on appeal that the Beneficiary satisfies this 
criterion based upon his performance as a professor of drama and film at the 
the founder and current director of the head of the and 
the curator of the m Upon review, the Petitioner has provided 
insufficient corroborating information regarding those entities or the Beneficiary's other past 
employers. 
The Petitioner's submission on appeal includes a letter from 
of the stating that the Beneficiary "is a valued member of our Faculty 
for over twenty years," "a very active Professor for the and "a central 
part in the foundation of the Cinema course in 2005." The Petitioner also attaches an advertisement 
for the stage production published on the blog 
describing the project as presenting three short stage pieces plus the film 
1 We also note that the Petitioner has submitted testimonial evidence in order to satisfy this criterion. Testimonial 
evidence cannot be used to satisfy this criterion, which requires submission of published materials by or about the 
Beneficiary in major newspapers, trade journals, magazines or other publications. . 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter of B-H-P-, LLC 
in celebration of anniversary. The advertisement mentions that 
the Beneficiary is the director of ' and the creator of one of the stage pieces, and 
notes that the project is a partnership between and a California company involving 
actors from both companies. The Petitioner further includes materials from website 
showing the company's projects on since its formation in 1996. 
The Petitioner also submits a press release for described as "[t]he first show of 
zombie films and horror," showing 14 films including' ' at the 
The press release identifies the Beneficiary as the curator of the show, but the Petitioner does not 
explain how a show constitutes an "organization or establishment." The Petitioner further provides a 
screenshot from the website describing the 
as a cinematic institution with a focus on the preservation and dissemination of "art cinema" 
which also offers film courses. This document does not mention the Beneficiary. 
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. A beneficiary's 
performance in this role should establish whether the role was critical for an organization or 
establishment as a whole. In addition, we may, in our discretion, use as advisory opinion statements 
offered as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 
However, we are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding a beneficiary's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. /d. The submission of letters of support from the Beneficiary's 
personal contacts is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; we may evaluate the content of those 
letters as to whether they support the foreign national's eligibility. See id. at 795-796; see also 
Matter ofV-K-, 24 I&N Dec. at 500 n.2 (BIA 2008). Thus, the content ofthe writers' statements and 
how they became aware of the Beneficiary's reputation are important considerations. Even when 
written by independent experts, letters solicited by a foreign national in support of a petition are of 
less weight than preexisting, independent evidence. 
Based on the above, we affirm the Director's finding that the Petitioner did not submit evidence 
demonstrating that the Beneficiary has performed in a lead, starring or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. While the evidence establishes that the 
Beneficiary previously performed as a professor for the and a director 
and founding member of the .submitted evidence does not describe the duties he 
performed for either organization, or elucidate how his position fit within the overall hierarchy of the 
organizations or his impact on the organizations. 
Further, even accepting that the Beneficiary's experience constitutes a leading role for those 
organizations, the Petitioner did not corroborate that they enjoy a distinguished reputation. The 
Petitioner provided materials from website showing projects the company has 
worked on since its formation in 1996, and information from the 
indicating it is one of the universities in Brazil. . The record does not contain corroborating 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of B-H-P-, LLC 
documentary evidence in the form of articles in newspapers, trade journals, publications or 
testimonials pertaining to the reputation of the or 
The Petitioner must also establish that the Beneficiary will, prospectively, provide services as a lead 
or starring participant for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. As 
previously stated, the petition and the deal memo indicate that the Beneficiary will work for the 
Petitioner for a seven-week period as the director of the feature film ' 
The Petitioner's submission on appeal contains a copy of a letter from 
confirming the intention of "to become [the Petitioner's] distributor in Latin 
American Territory," and stating 
that the company "will agree in good faith on contractual terms 
when [the Petitioner has] a rough cut of the film." 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated how the Beneficiary's role as a director on a film rises to the 
level of a lead, starring or critical role for the petitioning production company, or for the film's 
intended distribution company, While the Petitioner has established the Beneficiary's 
job title on the upcoming film project, the submitted evidence does not describe how the Beneficiary 
will contribute to the petitioning production company as a whole, or how his position fits within the 
overall hierarchy of the company. 
Finally, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it enjoys a 
distinguished reputation. As previously noted, the plain language of this criterion requires the 
submission of evidence in the form o1 newspapers, trade journals, publications or testimonials . 
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. Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 
165. In light of the above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary satisfies the 
plain language requirements of this evidentiary criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has a record of major commercial or critically acclaimed 
successes as evidenced by such indicators as title, rating, standing in the field, box 
office receipts, motion picture or television ratings, and other occupational 
achievements reported in trade journals, major newspapers, or other publications 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's evidence does not satisfy the evidentiary criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(4). In the Beneficiary's field, evidence satisfying this criterion would 
reasonably include evidence of box office revenue, video sales, and similar evidence of tangible 
achievements in the motion picture industry. 
The Petitioner avers on appeal that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion based upon a letter from 
stating that "[a]ll of [the Beneficiary's] productions have been broadcasted in Latin America 
territory, and are within the films in TV programming having garnered around 5 million 
viewers in Latin America territory." The Petitioner also provides a screenshot from the website of 
containing a synopsis of the film and indicating that the film is 
"current[ly] running at (in Brazil and all Latin America)." The Petitioner has not, 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of B-H-P-, LLC 
however, provided evidence corroborating statement. See Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
Assuming that this had been established, the record does not include evidence that such critical or 
commercial success was memorialized in trade journals, major newspapers, or other publications such 
that the Beneficiary's achievement was acknowledged in the industry at-large. In light of the above, 
the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary satisfies the plain language requirements of 
this evidentiary criterion. 
III. 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). Accordingly, it has not established eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N 
Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of B-H-P-, LLC, ID# 76774 (AAO Dec. 14, 2016) 
10