dismissed O-1B Case: Film Production

identifyin0 data deleted 16 
prevent clearly unw-tad 
invasion of persona\ privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
US Deputment of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Oflee of Administrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: - Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: AUG 0 4 2010 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 10 1 (a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 lOl(a)(lS)(O)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $585. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 

Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonirnmigrant visa petition. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this petition seeking to classify the beneficiary as an 0-1 nonimmigrant pursuant to section 
10 l(a)(l5)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), as an alien with extraordinary achievement in 
the motion picture or television industry. The petitioner operates a California-based film and television production 
business. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as a film producer in the United States from December 
1,2009 until January 15,2010.' 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has a 
demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement in the motion picture and television industry. In denying the 
petition, the director determined that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has been nominated for 
or has been the recipient of a significant national or international award, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(0)(3)(v)(A), 
or that he has met three of the six evidentiary criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R.5 214.2(0)(3)(v)(B). The director fhrther 
found that the petitioner failed to provide the required consultation from a labor union pursuant to 8 C.F.R. fj 
2 14.2(0)(5)(iii). 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded 
the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that it is submitting additional evidence in 
support of its claim that the beneficiary is an "established producer" in India and the United Kingdom. The 
petitioner does not specifically address the applicable evidentiary criteria for this visa classification. 
I. The Law 
Section 10 1 (a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (a)(15)(0)(i), provides classification to a qualified alien who 
has, with regard to motion picture and television productions, a demonstrated record of extraordinary 
achievement, whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation, and who 
seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability. The 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. 5 214.2(0)(3)(ii) provides the following pertinent definition: 
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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(0)(3)(v) states, in pertinent part: 
' The petitioner initially stated on Form 1-129, Petitioner for a Nonimmigrant Worker, that the beneficiary's 
job title will be "line producer" with responsibility to "arrange and expedite production." The petitioner later 
submitted an amended Form 1-129 and clarified that the petitioner is a line producer while the beneficiary is a 
film producer. 

Page 3 
Evidentiary criteria for an 0-1 alien of extraordinary achievement in the motion picture of 
television industry. To qualifL as an alien of extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or 
television industry, the alien must be recognized as having a demonstrated record of 
extraordinary achievement as evidenced by the following: 
(A) Evidence that the alien has been nominated for, or has been the recipient of, significant 
national or international awards or prizes in the particular field such as an Academy 
Award, an Emmy, a Grammy, or a Director's Guild Award; or 
(B) At least three of the following forms of documentation: 
(I) 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; 
(2) 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; 
(3) 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; 
(4) 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; 
(5) Evidence that the alien has received significant recognition for achievements 
from organizations, critics, government agencies, or other recognized experts in 
the field in which the alien is engaged. Such testimonials must be in a form 
which clearly indicates the author's authority, expertise, and knowledge of the 
alien's achievements; or 
(6) Evidence that the alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a 
high salary or other substantial remuneration for services in relation to others in 
the field, as evidenced by contracts or other reliable evidence. 
Additionally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(2)(iii) provides: 

Page 4 
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, fm, 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. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(0)(2)(ii) requires the petitioner to submit copies of any written 
contracts between the petitioner and the beneficiary; an explanation of the nature of the events or activities, along 
with an itinerary; and two consultations, one from an appropriate union and one from an appropriate 
management organization. 
The decision of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in a particular case is dependent upon the 
quality of the evidence submitted by the petitioner, not just the quantity of the evidence. The mere fact that the 
petitioner has submitted evidence relating to three of the criteria as required by the regulation does not 
necessarily establish that the alien is eligible for 0-1 classification. 59 Fed Reg at 41 820. 
In determining the beneficiary's eligibility under these criteria, the AAO will follow a two-part approach recently 
set forth in a decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Kazarian v. USCIS, 2010 WL 
725317 (9th Cir. March 4, 2010). Similar to the regulations governing this nonirnrnigrant classification, the 
regulations reviewed by the Kazarian court require the petitioner to submit evidence pertaining to at least three 
out of ten alternative criteria in order to establish a beneficiary's eligibility as an alien with extraordinary ability. 
Cf: 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3). 
Specifically, the Kazarian court stated that "the proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided 
(which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the 
applicant has failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id 
at *6 (citing to 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as the corollary 
to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the evidence 
demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(2), 
and "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3). Only aliens 
whose achievements have garnered "sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for 
an "extraordinary ability" visa. 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(A)(i). 
Id. at *3. 

Page 5 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then, if qualifying under at 
least three criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination. The final merits determination 
analyzes whether the evidence is consistent with the statutory requirement of "extensive documentation" and the 
regulatory definition of "extraordinary achievement" as "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." 
The AAO finds the Kazarian court's two part approach to be appropriate for evaluating the regulatory criteria set 
forth for 0-1 nonimmigrant petitions for aliens of extraordinary ability and extraordinary achievement at 8 C.F.R. 
3 214.2(0)(3)(iii), (iv) and (v). Therefore, in reviewing Service Center decisions, the AAO will apply the test set 
forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO will conduct a new analysis if the director 
reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the 
Kazarian court. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO reviews appeals on 
a de novo basis). 
In the present matter, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has a demonstrated record of 
extraordinary achievement to the extent that his accomplishments are recognized as outstanding, notable, or 
leading in the motion picture or television field. 8 C.F.R. $5 214.2(0)(3)(ii) and (v). 
11. The Beneficiary's Eligibility under the Evidentiary Criteria 
The beneficiary in this matter is a native and citizen of India. The beneficiary is a producer and director by 
profession and indicates on his resume that he has produced, or is in the process of producing and directing, - 
two films, and The 
beneficiary's resume also lists directing credits for two films, and assistant directing credits for five films. 
The AAO notes that the majority of the limited documentary evidence in the record pertains to the 
beneficiary's filmwhile the petitioner indicates that the'beneficiary will be filming a portion of the 
upcoming in California upon approval of the petition. The petitioner seeks to 
classify the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary achievement in the motion picture and television 
industry as a producer. 
The petitioner initially submitted the beneficiary's rksum6, a copy of a letter requesting a consultation from the 
Alliance of Motion Picture & Television Producers (AMPTP), an agreement between the beneficiary and the 
petitioner, copies of the beneficiary's membership cards in industry associations, a synopsis of the plot of the film 
and four articles from Indian trade publications which briefly mention the beneficiary's 
past and prospective films. 
The director issued a request for additional evidence ("WE") on November 17, 2009, in which she advised the 
petitioner that the initial evidence did not establish that the beneficiary qualifies as an alien of extraordinary 
achievement in the motion picture or television industry. The director referred to the evidentiary criteria at 8 
C.F.R. 5214.2(0)(3)(v)(B), and requested evidence to establish that the beneficiary meets at least three of the six 
criteria listed therein. The director also requested a consultation from the national office of an appropriate labor 
union, and a consultation from the national office of an appropriate management organization. The petitioner's 

Page 6 
response to this request consisted of an amended Form 1-129 in which the beneficiary's job title was changed 
frOm "line producer" to "producer," a letter from the petitioner explaining the error on the initial Form 1-129, and 
a letter from the Alliance of Motion Picture & Television Producers (AMPTP) indicating that the organization 
has "no objection" to the granting of an 0-1 visa. 
On December 8, 2009, the director denied the petition, finding that the beneficiary meets none of the six 
regulatory criteria for establishing a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement in the industry pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(v)(B). On appeal, the petitioner contends that the beneficiary is "an established producer 
in India [and] the [United Kingdom]." The petitioner submits additional documentary evidence in support of the 
appeal. 
After careful review of the record, it must be concluded that the petitioner has failed to overcome the grounds for 
denial. In order to establish eligibility as an alien of extraordinary achievement, the statute and regulations 
require evidence of a very high level of accomplishment in the motion picture or television industry evidenced 
by a degree of skill and recognition significantly above that ordinarily encountered to the extent that the 
person is recognized as outstanding, notable, or leading in the field, and whose achievements have been 
recognized in the field through extensive documentation. The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary 
or his achievements have been so recognized. 
If the petitioner establishes through the submission of documentary evidence that the beneficiary has been 
nominated for or has received a significant national or international award or prize in his or her field pursuant to 8 
C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(v)(A), then it will meet its burden of proof with respect to the beneficiary's eligibility for 0- 
1 classification. Here, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that the beneficiary has been nominated for or 
received a significant national or international award or prize comparable to an Academy, Emmy or Grammy 
Award. 
As there is no evidence that the beneficiary has been nominated for or received a significant national or 
international award or prize, the petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility under at least three of the six 
criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(v)(B). 
1. Evidence that the alien has performed, and will perform, services as a lead or starring 
participant in productions or events which have a distinguished reputation as evidenced by 
critical reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, publications, contracts, or endorsements 
In order to meet criterion number one, the petitioner must submit evidence that the beneficiary has performed, and 
will perform, services as a lead or starring participant in productions or events which have a distinguished 
reputation as evidenced by critical reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, publications, contracts or 
endorsements. 8 C.F.R. ij 214.2(0)(3)(v)(B)(l). 
The beneficiary lists a total of nine film credits in his resume. However, the record is devoid of any documentary 
evidence pertaining to the two films on which the beneficiary worked as a director, and with respect to the five 
films on which he indicates that he served as assistant director. Therefore, the AAO will focus its attention to the 

Page 7 
The beneficiary's role as producer and director of the feature film can be categorized as 
providing services as a lead participant. However, the petitioner must also establish through submission of critical 
reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, contracts or endorsements that the film itself has a distinguished 
reputation. The petitioner's initial evidence pertaining. to this criterion included a brief article published in the - 
February 28,2004 issue of the Indian publication indicating that 
The Dark Side of the System is ready in five reels." The article lists the names 
of the cast, writer and music credits, and identifies the beneficiary as director. The petitioner submitted a similar 
short article from the page of the February 28, 2004 issue of the Indian publication - - 
With respect to the beneficiary's current project, 
while in the United States, the petitioner submitte 
consists of three sentences published in the August 18, 2007 issue of the Indian publication 
article lists as one of three films the beneficiary is producing and directing. Finally, the 
petitioner submitted an announcement titled which appears to have been 
published in the section of an issue of  his article is also three sentences in 
length, and provides essentially the same information as the aforementioned article. 
In the RFE issued on November 17,2009, the director advised the petitioner that the initial evidence did not meet 
this criterion, and requested that the petitioner submit additional evidence to establish that the beneficiary has 
performed and will perform as a lead participant in productions or events that have a distinguished reputation, 
including evidence in the form of written reviews from critics, advertisements, publicity releases, publication 
contracts or endorsements. Although the petitioner submitted a response to the RFE, it did not include any 
additional evidence related to this evidentiary criterion, and the director concluded that the criterion had not been 
met. 
The petitioner submits additional published articles on appeal, primarily related to the beneficiary's work on 
the film However, the petitioner was put on notice of required evidence and given a reasonable 
opportunity to provide it for the record before the visa petition was adjudicated. The petitioner failed to 
submit the requested evidence and now submits it on appeal. The AAO will not consider this evidence for 
any purpose. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 
(BIA 1988). The failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be 
grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(14). 
Regardless, the AAO notes that the petitioner's new evidence does not include critical reviews, advertisements, 
publicity releases, testimonials or other documentary evidence establishing the distinguished reputation of the 
beneficiary's past or present films. Almost all of the new evidence pertains to the release of a promotional audio 
cassette of the film- August 3 1,2003. While this musical release appears to have been well-publicized 
in Indian trade publications, there is no documentary evidence relating. to the film release itself. In fact. based on 
a letter dated december 19, 2009 from is unclear whether the filmhas 
been released. indicated that it provided production services in the United Kingdom in 
November 2005 for the film "tentatively titled 'I It is unclear why the title of the film would remain 
"tentative" in 2009 if it had already been released. 

Page 8 
In addition, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary will be providing services as a lead or starring 
participant in productions or events with a distinguished reputation. The petitioner has provided no additional 
evidence to document the distinguished reputation of the film - The limited 
documentary evidence submitted merely confirms that the beneficiary is producing and directing the film. Going 
on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof 
in these proceedings. Matter of Soflci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has performed and will perform as a 
lead or starring participant in productions or events which have a distinguished reputation. Therefore, the criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(v)(B)(l) has not been met. 
2. 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 
In order to establish that the beneficiary meets the second criterion, the petitioner must submit 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. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(v)(B)(2). 
Upon review, the only published materials in the record of proceeding include brief notes regarding the 
beneficiary's film projects in Indian trade publications, as discussed above. The minimal evidence submitted to 
establish this criterion does not demonstrate that the beneficiary has received national or international media 
recognition for his achievements in the motion picture and television industry. The articles, while technically 
"about the beneficiary" do little more than confirm the titles of the films on which he has worked or is working as 
producer. The petitioner has not submitted any critical reviews or other post-release newspaper, articles or 
journal articles discussing the beneficiary's work. Brief acknowledgements from trade publications regarding the 
beneficiary's upcoming work in the forms of announcements or production notes cannot be considered an 
"achievement" in and of itself. The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
3. Evidence that the alien hm 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 beneficiary presently appears to be self-employed by - The petitioner has provided no 
information regarding any organizations or establishments that have employed the beneficiary in the past. The 
record contains no documentary evidence in the form of articles in newspapers, trade journals, publications or 
testimonials to demonstrate that- has a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner also submitted photocopies of membership cards indicating that the beneficiary is a member of 
the Indian Motion Picture Producers' Association, a Life Member of the Indian Film & Television Directors' 
Association, and a Life Member of the Western India Film Producers' Association. The petitioner has 
provided no additional explanation or documentation regarding the significance of or requirements for these 

Page 9 
memberships such that it could be determined that a "life membership" can be considered a "critical role" in 
these organizations. 
Therefore, the petitioner has not submitted evidence to meet the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 
4. 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 $el4 box ofice receipts, motion 
picture or television ratings, and other occupational achievements reported in trade journals, 
major newspapers, or other publications 
To establish that the beneficiary meets the fourth criterion, the petitioner must establish 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. 8 C.F.R. 
0 2 14.2(0>(3>(v)(B>(4). 
This criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence that there is a published record of the beneficiary's 
critical or commercial success, such that his achievement is acknowledged in the industry at-large. As 
discussed above, the petitioner has submitted minimal evidence regarding the beneficiary's completed work 
from published sources, and no evidence that any of his prior films have been critical or commercial 
successes. The petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
5. Evidence that the alien has received signiJicant recognition for achievements from 
organizations, critics, government agencies, or other recognized experts in the field in which 
the alien is engaged. Such testimonials must be in a form which clearly indicates the author's 
authority, expertise, and knowledge of the alien's achievements 
In order to meet the fifth regulatory criterion, the petitioner may submit evidence that the beneficiary has 
received significant recognition for achievements from organizations, critics, government agencies, or other 
recognized experts in the field in which the alien is engaged. Such testimonials must be in a form which 
clearly indicates the author's authority, expertise, and knowledge of the alien's achievements. 8 C.F.R. 5 
2 14.2(0>(3>(v>(B>(5>. 
Further, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(2)(iii)(D) provides that 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. 
Although the petitioner does not specifically address this criterion, the petitioner does state that the 
beneficiary is "an established producer" in India and the United Kingdom. The petitioner submits a certificate 
from the Western India Film Producers' Association affirming that the beneficiary's company, - 
is a "Life Member" of the association. As noted above, the petitioner provides no additional 
explanation as to the requirements for becoming a "Life Member" of this association; therefore, the AAO 

Page 10 
cannot determine that this membership alone rises to the level of "significant recognition for achievements" in 
the motion picture industry. Furthermore, the certificate is not in a form which sets forth the beneficiary's 
recognition and achievements in factual terms and thus does not meet the requirements for testimonial 
evidence set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(5)(B)(5). 
The petitioner also letter from - regarding 
the beneficiary's services in London in November 2005 while filming a portion 
of the motion picture intended to support the petitioner's assertion 
that the beneficiary is an "established producer" in the United Kingdom, it does not provide evidence that the 
beneficiary has received significant recognition for achievements. The letter fiomdoes 
not certify to the beneficiary's recognition and extraordinary achievement, nor does it specifically describe the 
alien's recognition and ability or achievement in factual terms or set forth the expertise of the author. The letter 
merely confirms that the beneficiary worked with the U.K.-based production house while filminln the 
United Kingdom for two weeks in November 2005. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
6. Evidence that the alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a high salary or 
other substantial remuneration for services in relation to others in the field, as evidenced by 
contracts or other reliable evidence 
The sixth and final criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence that the beneficiary has either commanded 
a high salary or will command a high salary or other substantial remuneration for services in relation to others in 
the field, as evidenced by contracts or other reliable evidence. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(v)(B)(@. The evidence of 
record does not indicate the amount of any salary or remuneration the beneficiary would receive while in the 
United States and contains no evidence regarding the beneficiary's remuneration for previous film projects. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
111. Final Merits Determination 
Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then, if qualifying under three 
criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination. However, as discussed above, the petitioner 
established eligibility for none of the six criteria, of which three are required under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 
2 14.2(0)(3)(v)(B). 
Notwithstanding the above, a final merits determination considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or 
not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) that the beneficiary has achieved 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 he is recognized as outstanding, notable, or leading in the motion 
picture or television field, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(ii); and (2) that the beneficiary is recognized as 
having a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(v). See Kazarian, 
2010WL725317at "3. 

Page 11 
Upon review, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has a demonstrated record 
of extraordinary achievement in the motion picture industry or that he is recognized in the field as outstanding, 
notable or leading. 
The specific deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have already been addressed in our 
preceding discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(0)(3)(v)(B). The petitioner submitted some 
documentation relating to the beneficiary's work experience. Although the evidence establishes that the 
beneficiary is a working film producer in India, there is no evidence that the beneficiary is recognized in India or 
internationally as having a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement in motion picture production, or 
that he is leading or notable within the industry. The minimal evidence submitted does not distinguish the 
beneficiary from any other film producer and is insufficient to establish that he is recognized as leading or 
outstanding in the field. 
The beneficiary has worked as a producer on only two films, one of which is in the pre-production phase and one 
of which may or may not have been completed and released. While two other future projects have been named, 
the petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the nonimmigrant visa petition. A visa petition 
may not be approved at a future date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of 
facts. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm. 1978). 
Therefore, the conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to meet each criterion separately is consistent 
with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the minimal evidence does not 
distinguish the beneficiary as one with a demonstrated record of achievement in the industry. The 
documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary achievement must clearly demonstrate that 
the beneficiary has achieved a very high level of accomplishment in the motion picture industry. While the 
beneficiary appears to be a working film producer, he does not have a demonstrated record of extraordinary 
achievement nor have his achievements been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. 
Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
IV. Written Consultation Requirements 
The second issue addressed by the director is whether the petitioner satisfied the written consultation 
requirements pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(0)(2)(ii)(D), and 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(5)(iii) which provides: 
Consultation requirements for an 0-1 alien of extraordinary achievement. In the case of an 
alien of extraordinary achievement who will be working on a motion picture or television 
production, consultation shall be made with the appropriate union representing the alien's 
occupational peers and a management organization in the area of the alien's ability. . . . If the 
advisory opinion is favorable to the petitioner, the written advisory opinion from the labor 
and management organizations should describe the alien's achievements in the motion picture 
or television field and state whether the position requires the services of an alien of 
extraordinary achievement. If a consulting organization has no objection to the approval of 
the petition, the organization may submit a letter of no objection in lieu of the above. 

Page 12 
At the time of filing the petition on November 10, 2009, the petitioner indicated that it had requested a 
consultation from the AMPTP. In the request for evidence dated November 17, 2009, the director instructed 
to submit the required labor organization and management organization consultations. The director referred 
the petitioner to AMPTP to obtain the management organization consultation, and referred the petitioner to 
obtain a consultation from the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture 
Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States and Canada (I.A.T.S.E.). 
On November 17,2009, the petitioner submitted a letter from AMPTP indicating that the organization has no 
objection to the granting of the 0-1 visa for the beneficiary to serve in the role of executive producer for the 
motion picture The petitioner also submitted an amended Form 1-129 indicating 
that the beneficiary's proposed position will be as a producer, rather than a line producer. 
In denying the petition, the director determined that the petitioner failed to provide a written consultation from 
an appropriate labor organization. The director notes that, although the petitioner was asked to obtain a 
consultation from I.A.T.S.E., the appropriate consulting organization would in fact be the Producers Guild of 
America (PGA). The director noted that her request for the I.A.T.S.E. was based upon the petitioner's initial 
indication on Form 1-129 that the beneficiary will be employed as a line producer. On appeal, the petitioner 
notes that it provided timely clarification regarding the beneficiary's actual job title and obtained the AMPTP 
consultation prior to its receipt of the WE. The petitioner resubmits the AMPTP consultation in support of 
the appeal. 
Upon review, the petitioner has not satisfied the written consultation requirement set forth at 8 C.F.R. $ 
2142(0)(5)(iii). The AAO notes that the AMPTP consultation satisfies the requirement for a consultation 
from a management organization with expertise in the beneficiary's field, and the director did not take issue 
with this consultation. However, the petitioner still has not addressed its requirement to also submit a 
consultation with the appropriate labor organization, i.e., the appropriate union representing the beneficiary's 
occupational peers. As noted by the director, an appropriate union would be the Producers Guild of America. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted evidence on appeal to overcome the director's finding, and the 
appeal will be dismissed for this additional reason. The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for 
the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternative basis for the decision. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.