dismissed O-1B Case: Film Production

(b)(6)
Date: 'APR 0 3 2014 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner : 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Cit izenship and Immigr ation Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W ., MS 2090 
Washin~on, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION : Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act , 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http: //www.uscis.gov/ forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Ron Rose nberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Vermont Service Center Director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and 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 
101(a)(15)(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 an independent film production business. The 
petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as a creative producer/director in the United States for a period of three 
years. 
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. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(A), 
or that she has met three of the six evidentiary criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B). 
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 the director committed numerous errors 
of law and fact. The petitioner submits a brief in support of the appeal. 
I. The Law 
Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(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. § 214.2(o)(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. § 214.2(o)(3)(v) states, in pertinent part: 
Evidentiary criteria for an 0-1 alien of extraordinary achievement in the motion picture of 
television industry. To qualify as an alien of extraordinary achievement in the moti,on picture or 
television industry, the alien must be recognized as having a demonstrated record of 
extraordinary achievement as evidenced by the following: 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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 : 
(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; 
(2) Evidence that the alien has achieved national or international recogmt10n 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. 
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 41820. 
In determining the beneficiary's eligibility under these criteria, the AAO will follow a two-part approach set forth 
in a 2010 decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
(9th Cir. 2010). Similar to the regulations governing this nonimmigrant 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). 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. Instead of 
parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry , the cowt 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 1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 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)(1)(A)(i). 
Id. at 1119-20. 
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 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 at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o )(3)(iii), (iv) and (v). Therefore, in reviewing Service 
Center decisions, the AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United 
States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. 
DOJ, 381 F.3d 143 , 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
II. Discussion 
1. The Beneficiary's Eligibility under the Evidentiary Criteria 
In order to establish eligibility as an alien of extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or television 
industry, the statute and regulations require evidence of a very high level of accomplishment in the 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. Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i); 8 C.P.R. 214.2(o)(3)(ii). 
The petitioner has not established through extensive documentation that the beneficiary or her 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 her field pursuant to 8 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(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 claimed nor 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. 
Therefore, the petitioner must establish the beneficiary 's eligibility under at least three ofthe six criteria set forth 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B). The petitioner asserts eligibility under several criteria, specifically, 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(l), (2), (3), (4), and (5). Each criterion will be discussed below. 
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 
Under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(l), the petitioner submitted evidence in the form of critical 
reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, and publications establishing that the beneficiary's past performance 
as the producer of " ' constitutes providing services as a lead participant in a production with a 
distinguished reputation. Thus, the petitioner has satisfied the elements of this criterion pertaining to past 
participation in productions or events which has a distinguished reputation. 
With respect to the elements of the criterion requiring that the beneficiary will perform services as a lead or 
starring participant in productions or events which have a distinguished reputation, the petitioner submitted 
documentation indicating that the beneficiary will serve as the director and screenwriter for the feature film 
This documentation consists of the petitioner's engagement offer to the beneficiary dated November 
15, 2012, documentation the petitioner characterized as "presentation of film," and letters attesting that the 
beneficiary has attached the Turkish actor to this film. While the petitioner's engagement 
offer to the beneficiary could reasonably be considered a contract, the petitioner failed to explain how the 
engagement offer establishes the distinguished reputation of the film.
1 
This document merely sets forth the basic 
terms of employment between the petitioner and the beneficiary; it contains no information pertinent to the 
reputation of the film. With regards to the "presentation of film," the petitioner failed to provide any explanation 
and evidence establishing the nature of this presentation, including whether the presentation has ever been 
published or released to the public as to potentially constitute an advertisement, publicity release, and/or 
publication. With respect to the letters attesting that the beneficiary has attached the award-winning Turkish actor 
to the film, the petitioner has not explained how these letters constitute endorsements, critical 
reviews, or other types of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(l), nor how they address the reputation 
of the film. The petitioner submitted no other evidence establishing the reputation of the film 
The pet1t10ner also submitted documentation establishing that the beneficiary will perform post-production 
services for the feature film" With regards to the reputation of" " the petitioner 
submitted an article reflecting that the film, among six others, received an annual :-
grant. The petitioner pointed out that these grants were awarded to only seven out of 84 submissions in that year. 
The petitioner then explained that "the quality of '' is emphasized by the fact that although 
1 
Notably, the engagement offer states: "This deal memo shall confirm these essential terms of our agreement 
and shall be subject to a more formal agreement once we are nearer actual production. This agreement may 
be changed or cancelled without obligation by either party at any time." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
Frameline is non-profit organization solely dedicated to the funding, exhibition, distribution and promotion of 
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) media arts, the focus of , ~- · · is not solely on same­
sex relationships but also on the similarly sensitive issues of monogamy and race ." However, the petitioner's 
explanation is not persuasive. Merely establishing that the film received a grant from a non-profit organization 
supporting LGBT media arts, even though the film also addresses non-LGBT subjects, falls short of establishing 
that the film has a distinguished reputation. The petitioner submitted evidence establishing the distinguished 
reputation of ,..___ _ - , however, evidence of the distinguished reputation of the film 's director, alone, does 
not equate to evidence of the distinguished reputation of the film itself. 
Overall, the petitioner has failed to satisfy all elements of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(l). 
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 
Under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(2), the petitioner submitted three articles that "solely featured 
or showcased the beneficiary, " specifically: "I 
published in ~-, published in 
:::..._ __ =J =, ~~~~~~~=:_:_:_::_::_::_=:_=_=_=_:::.~=-=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=._=_=~-. J ' published in 
the Turkish publication Filmlerim.com. 
While the articles '\ _ .. ----~--- J-------- and ' 
are about the beneficiary, the petitioner failed to 
establish that these articles are were published in major publications, as required by the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o )(3)(v)(B)(2). The petitioner provided no information about 
· ~ · · · · such as their distribution, circulation, or readership. Without such 
information, the AAO has no basis to gauge whether these publications are "major" publications. 
The article ' ' is not "about" the beneficiary, as required by the plain langu age of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(2). This article is about the question of whether producers cast, as 
answered by five producers including the beneficiary. It is insufficient to establish eligibility for this criterion 
based on any material that simply mentions or quotes the beneficiary, without any substantive discussion about 
the beneficiary relating to her work. 
Based on the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2( o )(3)(v)(B)(2). 
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 
Under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(3), the petitioner highlighted the films the beneficiary has 
produced or co-produced, including ' j The petitioner also 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
highlighted the credentials of the directors of the above films, including 
. However, the petitioner has failed to explain and document how films, or their directors , can be 
considered "organizations and establishments" within the ordinary meaning of those terms.2 The petitioner has 
submitted no evidence pertai ning to the reputations of the actual organizations or establishments that produced or 
directed the films, such as the petitioning company or r Therefo re, the 
petitioner has not submitted evidence to meet the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(J). 
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 
Under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(4), the petitioner highlighted that the film ' 
"' produced by the benefici ary, won two awards and was screened at twenty six film festivals. The 
petitioner did not discuss any oth er films in which the bene ficia ry has been involved under the criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(4). 
The plain language of this criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(4) requires evidence that the beneficiary 
has "a record of major commercial or critically acclaimed successes," in the plural (emphasis added) . 
Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B) are worded in the plural , such as the criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(6) which only requires evidence that the beneficiary has "either commanded a high 
salary or will command a high salary (emphasis added)." Moreover , when the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(o) 
wishes to include the singular within the plural, it expre ssly does so, as when it states at 8 C.F.R. 
214.2( o )(3)(ii)(D) that the petitioner must submit a "written advisory opinion(s) from the appropriate consulting 
entity or entities." Thus , the AAO can infer that the plural in any regulatory criterion has meaning. In a different 
context, federal courts have upheld USCIS ' ability to interpret significance from whether the singular or plural is 
used in a regulation? 
Here, the petitioner has o nly claimed eligibility under the criterion at 8 C.F.R . § 214.2( o)(3 )(v)(B)(4) based 
upon the success of the single film The petitioner highlighted that this film won the 
2012 
and was screened at twenty six different film festivals. On appeal, the petitioner emphasizes 
that the fact a film is chosen to be screened at prestigious film festivals is "substantial recognition of success 
in and of itself and represents a major professional accomplishment." However , the petitioner failed to 
provide objective evidence to establish the significance of these awards and screenings, thus failing to 
establish that it constitutes a "major" success as required by the plain language of 8 C.F .R. 
2 The petitioner consistently merges its discussi o n of the evidence under the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(l) and (3), without clarifying which pieces of evidence were submitted under which 
criterion. 
3 See Maramjaya v. USC/S, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnames.com 
Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 at *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an interpretation that the 
regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor 's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) 
requir es a single degree rather than a combination of aca demic credentials). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(4). Merely stating in conclusory language that these awards and screenings are 
"prestigious" and "represents a major professional accomplishment" is insufficient to meet the burden of 
proof. The lack of objective supporting evidence gives the AAO no basis to gauge the level of success of' 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is 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 l&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)). Without documentary evidence to 
support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported 
assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); 
Matt er of Laur eano, 19 T&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez , 17 I&N Dec. 503 , 506 (BIA 
1980). 
Even assuming arguendo that the petitioner has established that '' received major 
commercial or critically acclaimed success, the petitioner nevertheless failed to meet all elements of the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(4). The major success of one single film cannot constitute "a record 
of major commercial or critically acclaimed successes," as required by the plain language of the regulation 
(emphasis added). 
4 
Notwithstanding the petitioner's failure to establish eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(4), the AAO 
will withdraw the director 's finding that the petitioner did not claim eligibility under this criterion. The petitioner 
expressly asserted eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(4) in its response to the RFE. 
Evidence that the alien has received significant recognition for achiev ements from 
organizations, critics, government agencies, or other recognized expert s in the field in which 
the alien is engaged. Such testimonials must be in a form which clearly indicat es the author's 
authority, expertise, and knowledge of the alien's achievements 
Under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(5), the petitioner provided several testimonials. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(2)(iii)(D) states that affidavits (testimonials) 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 acquir ed such information. Each testimonial will be discussed below. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from 
who also instructed the beneficiary in two courses at 
describes the beneficiary as an excellent student, and describes her as being "industrious , ambitious 
and dedicated ." He attests that the beneficiary was chosen as tnd 
and lists her associated responsibilities including coordinating admissions 
4 
The AAO notes that the petitioner listed the beneficiary ' s other films which have been screened at various film 
festivals under the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(l) and (3). However, the petitioner did not 
specifically assert that the screenings of the beneficiary 's other films constitute evidence of "major commercial 
or critically acclaimed successes" pursuant to 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(4), and the AAO will not analyze 
or consider them as such. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
interviews, overseeing teacher-student relations, and serving as a teaching assistant. also attests 
to the beneficiary's assistance in setting up meetings with prominent industry figures during the 
Festival. 1 conclude s that the beneficiary , "fueled by her commitment and great creative instincts 
quickly became a leading figure both at and in the independent film industry at large. I can confirm 
that (the beneficiary] is a producer of extraordinary ability." 
While speaks of the beneficiary in positive terms, he fails to specifically describe the 
beneficiary's achievements, as required by the plain language of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(5). Furthermore, 
he fails to specifically describe her recognition and ability or achievement in factual terms , pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(o)(2)(iii)(D). Instead, he describes her talents in a general manner, while describing her duties as a 
in more detail statement that the beneficiary 
is a " leading figure both at r- · · and in the independent film industry at large" is conclusory and not entitled 
to evidentiary weight. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N at 165. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from . an independent film producer who is the President of the 
petitioner and has also collaborated with the beneficiary on several projects. praises the beneficiary's 
talents as a producer and director, describing her as having "extraordinary" technical and artistic abilities, a "big 
and perceptive heart," and a "very keen eye for casting ." He describes his observations of her work on their 
collaborative projects, attesting that she is "industrious, hard-working and astoundingly creative ," and has 
"uncompromising dedication" to their projects. He concludes that she is an "extraordinary professional 
filmmaker." Again, while speaks of the beneficiary in positive terms , he fails to specifically describe 
the beneficiary's achievements, as required by the plain language of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(5). 
Furthermore, he fails to specifically describe her recognition and ability or achievement in factual terms , pursuant 
to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(iii)(D). Instead, he describes her talents and abilities as a filmmak er in general. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from 
describes the beneficiary's efforts and support in the production of the film. describes the beneficiary 
as "the guardian angel of my film, and my most precious partner in making the film," which allowed 
"to realize my artistic vision." also discusses the beneficiary 's "amazing ability" in casting and 
attaching musical talent to a film. concludes that "[i]t is quite evident that [the beneficiary] will go on 
to do great things in the film industry, and has already gained and sustained significant international success and 
renown as a filmmaker.' ' While speaks of the beneficiary in positive terms, she fails to specifically 
describe the beneficiary 's achievements, as required by the plain language of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(5). 
Furthermore, she fails to specifically describe the beneficiary's recognition and ability or achievement in factual 
terms , pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(iii)(D). Instead , she describes the beneficiary's specific contributions to 
their film, and the beneficiary's talents and abilities in general. statement that the beneficiary "has 
already gained and sustained significant international success and renown as a filmmaker" is conclusory and not 
entitled to evidentiary weight. /d. 
The petitioner submitted a letter fran: and who 
advised the beneficiary while she produced her thesis project a J and "' 
states that the beneficiary is "a remarkably gifted producer whose extraordinary character sets her apart 
from most other young producers." He describes her ambition and "fierce commitment and unshakeable 
commitment ," and gives an example of how the beneficiary attached the " internationally acclaimed Turkish actor, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
also describes the beneficiary's "remarkable instincts" for 
understanding story and developing script, and her "outstanding gift for casting, packaging and discovering talent 
for a project." -·-- . states , without explanation , that "the short film she wrote and directed was so well 
received at and at festivals around the world. " concludes that the beneficiary 
"possesses the unique creativity and extraordinary ability to provide exquisite production work ," and is 
"undoubtedly an outstanding artist and producer." 
Similar to the other testimonials discussed above , speaks highly of the beneficiary but fails to 
specifically describe the beneficiary's achievements and her recognition in factual terms, as required by 8 CF.K 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(5) and 8 CF.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(iii)(D). Instead, he describes the beneficiary's talents in 
general terms. While provides an example of the beneficiary's ability in terms of attaching an 
acclaimed Turkish actor for one of her films , this example is insufficient to describe the beneficiary's 
achievements and recognition. fails to explain and provide the factual basis for his statement that 
"the short film she wrote and directed was so well received at and at festivals around the 
world." Thus, this conclusory statement is not entitled to weight. !d. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from producer and full-time faculty at 
Graduate Film Program in the Producing Department, who was also one of the beneficiary's teachers at 
University. describes the beneficiary's film "as a "beautifully composed story, which was 
both engaging and deeply touching," which played at several film festivals including the 
describes the production of ' as 
"one of the most challenging productions in the history of our school," and discusses the obstacles the beneficiary 
overcame to produce the film, as well as the beneficiary's contributions to find music for the film. 
states that ' played at "several top film festivals including the : 
It also won the Grand Jury Prize at this year's a very 
prestigious award ." Finally , states that she selected the beneficiary as the Producing Fellow of 2009-
2010, and Master Producing Fellow of 2010-20 ll, which she states are "distinguished honors." 
mentions three particular achievements of the beneficiary, specifically: the screenings of' 
at "top film festivals; " the "very prestigious" Grand Jury Prize and screenings of' ' , ' and the 
"distinguished honors" of being selected as Producing Fellow of 2009-2010 and Master Producing Fellow of 
2010-2011. However, does not provide any factual basis for her characterizations of these award, 
screenings, and fellowship programs, as required at 8 CF.K § 214.2(o)(2)(iii)(D). The AAO is not persuaded 
by vague, solicited assertions of the prestige or distinguished reputation of these awards, screenings , and 
fellowship programs, without any objective evidence to corroborate these assertions. Conclusory assertions 
are not entitled to evidentiary weight. !d. The lack of supporting evidence gives the AAO no basis to gauge 
the significance of these award, screenings, and fellowship programs. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from , an independent film director and the director of " 
discusses the beneficiary's contributions to and work on the film, stating that the 
beneficiary's work "was nothing short of astonishing." He discusses her talents and skills in photography, 
editing , and choosing music with respect to the film. He states that he appreciates the beneficiary's 
"professionalism and character so much , that she continues to take part in the final post-production duties for 
which should premier next year at major film festivals throughout the world. " While Mr. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
speaks highly of the beneficiary, he fails to specifically describe the beneficiary's achievements, and her 
recognition and ability or achievements in factual terms, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(o)(3)(v)(B)(5) and 8 
C.F.R . § 214.2(o)(2)(iii)(D). Instead , he describes the beneficiary's talents in general terms , while discussing her 
contributions to his film in more detail. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from and 2012 
Creative Producing Fellow. describes how he was so impressed by the beneficiary's talents that 
he asked her to co-produce and entrusted her to manage the production in his absence . 
While _ speaks highly of the beneficiary, he fails to specifically describe the beneficiary's 
achievements, and her recognition and ability or achievements in factual terms, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214 .2(o)(3)(v)(B)(5) and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(iii)(D) . Instead, he describes the beneficiary's talents 111 
general terms, while discussing her contributions to " in more detail. 
Th e petitioner submitted a l etter from , producer, director, and documentary filmmaker who 
collaborated with the beneficiary in " asserts the beneficiary is "a unique and 
outstanding producer. " describes the beneficiary 's charisma, passion, and devotion to her projects. 
In particular , describes the beneficiary ' s contributions to the production of "l ' in 
which she "single-handedly saved the production" and overcame various production issues. 
concludes that she believes the beneficiary "is going to become a force to be reckoned with in the American 
film and TV industry" and asserts that she is "both a leader and a creative force in the field." Similar to the 
other affidavits discussed above, speaks highly of the beneficiary, but fails to specifically describe the 
beneficiary 's achievements, and her recognition and ability or achievements in factual terms, as required by 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(5) and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(iii)(D). Instead, she describes the beneficiary's talents 
and leadership in the field in conclusory terms, which is not entitled to evidentiary weight. Id. 
The petitioner submitted a letter frorr 
and Arts. Neither the petitioner nor I describe his credentials in the film industry, thus failing to 
establish that can be considered an expert in the field as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(5). Regardless, makes references to the beneficiary's "professional 
. achievements" and "international achievements ," without specifically describing the beneficiary 's 
achievements, and her recognition and ability or achievements in factual terms, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(3)(v)(B)(5) and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(2)(iii)(D). Again, conclusory assertions about the beneficiary's 
achievements and recognition are insufficient and not entitled to evidentiary weight. !d. Merely repeating the 
language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989) , affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990) ; A vyr Associates, Inc. v. 
Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
Finally, the petitioner provided a Jetter from a producer and director who has 
collaborated with the beneficiary since 2007. speaks about the beneficiary's talents and 
characteristics in positive terms, such as describing her as "unquestionably the most talented and astute 
collaborator I have ever had the pleasure of working with." discusses how he has chosen to 
collaborate with the beneficiary on his upcoming feature project, and how he hopes to collaborate with her on 
her upcoming film. concludes that he has no doubt the beneficiary "w ill continue to garner 
great success throughout her career. " letter fails to specifically describe the beneficiary 's 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Pag e 12 
achievements, and her recogmt10n and ability or achiev ements in factual terms, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(5) and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(iii)(D). Instead, he describes the beneficiary's talents in 
conclusory terms , which are not entitled to evidentiary weight. !d. 
Overall, the testimonials submitted are insu fficient to establish eligibility under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(5). The testimonial letters do not adequately describe with specificity the beneficiary's 
achievements, and her recognition and ability or achievements in factual terms, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214 .2(o)(3)(v)(B)(5) and 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(o)(2)(iii)(D)). Instead , they describe the beneficiary 's talents and 
abilities as a filmmaker in general. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts : 
The distinction between ' achievement' and 'talent or style' is illogical where the definition of 
'achievement' in Webster ' s dictionary is 'a successful result gained by effort '. Achievement 
in film is positive reception and reaction to a film (the successful result) that is conceived of 
and realized by a filmmaker (gained by artistic efforts: talent, style, vision, skills) . 
Recognition of achievement in film lies in the critical and commercial appreciation of how 
the filmmaker applied their particular and unique artistic efforts . The testimonials submitted 
include extensive acclaim from leading experts in the field who offer their critical 
appreciati on of the films produced by the beneficiary and which include a detailed discussion 
of her specific experience, expertise , and exceptional artistic ability, her artistic efforts, which 
directly resulted in the film ' s succe ss, the achievement. The definition of achievement is 
broad, defined through a variety of media and documents as per the usage in multiple 
evidentiary categories within the regulations themselves. 
The AAO finds the petitioner's assertions unpersuasive . There is a distinction between the terms 
"achievement" and "talent or style ." While the AAO agrees with the petitioner that ac hievements in the film 
industry are generally gained by a filmmaker ' s talent and style, the converse is not always true. A filmmaker 
can have talent and style, but never gain "achievements" in terms of significant recognition from experts in 
the film industry , as required at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(5)(B)(5). The petitioner has submitted testimonials 
generally attesting to the talent or style of the beneficiary , but the testimonials fall short of attesting to the 
achievements of the beneficiary. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion at 8 C.F .R. § 
214.2( o )(5)(B)(5). 
Notwithstanding the petitioner's failure to establish eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(5), the AAO 
will withdraw the director's comment that the testimonials do not demonstrate that the beneficiary has "made any 
major contribution s to her art for which she will be remembered , or which will influence those who follow her." 
The director's comment goes beyond the plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214 .2(o)(3)(v)(B)(5). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
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 petitioner has never claimed eligibility under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(6). The 
petitioner specifically emphasized in its RFE response that it was not claiming eligibility under this criterion. 
The director erred by making a finding on this criterion , where the petitioner made clear that it was not 
claiming eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(6). Accordingly the AAO will withdraw the director 's 
finding and associated comments with respect to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(6). 
2. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to establish eligibility under a~ least three of the six criteria found under the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B) . Therefore , the proper conclusion is that petitioner has failed to satisfy· the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in accordance with 
the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a consideration of the evidence in the context of a final merits 
determination. However, as discussed above, the petitioner failed to establish eligibility under at least three of the 
criteria found under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B). Therefore, the AAO will not conduct a final 
merits determination. 5 
III. Conclusion 
The petitioner failed to establish the beneficiary's eligibility pursuant to the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R . 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(A) or 8 C.P .R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B). Therefore, the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary qualifies as an alien of extraordinary ability in the motion picture or television industry. 
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; Matt er of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127 , 128 (BIA 2013). 
Here, that burden has not been mel. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5 The AAO maintains de novo review. Soltane v. DOl , 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future 
proceeding on motion or as a result of litigation, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits 
determination as the official who made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F .R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See also 
Section 103(a)(1) of the Act; Section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 
2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii)(2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I & N Dec. 458 , 460 
(BIA 1987)(holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa 
petitions).