dismissed O-1B Case: Film Production

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATIER OF S-R- LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 13, 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a film 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, California 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.P.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 Director also found that the Petitioner provided inconsistent information 
regarding the Beneficiary's proposed duties in the United States. 
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.P.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 S-R- LLC 
The implementing regulation at 8 C.P.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 Grammy, or a Director's Guild Award. 8 C.P.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.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(l)-(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.P.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.P.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 S -R- 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 Producer for a period of three years. 
According to the Beneficiary's Curriculum Vitae (CV), she has been working as a film producer in 
Denmark since at least 1990. In 2008, she co-founded, with film director 
the Danish film production company Her CV listed producing credits on lO 
films between 2003 and 2015 as follows: 
• '(2003); 
• '(2003); 
• '(2006) 
• (2009); 
• '(2009); 
• (2010); 
• (2011); 
• '(2013); 
• '(2014); and 
• (2015) . 
The Beneficiary's CV also indicated that she is the producer of the film ' 
was in production on the date the petition was filed. 
which 
In its initial letter, the Petitioner explained that it seeks to have the Beneficiary perform services "as 
the Producer of the feature length motion picture entitled " The Petitioner 
described the Beneficiary as "an internationally known and highly acclaimed film producer" with a 
25-year career as the producer of successful motion pictures, including the above-mentioned films. 
The Petitioner detailed the Beneficiary's duties in the proffered position as requiring her "to begin 
casting, scout locations, oversee set construction, costumes and complete the work on the 
., Her duties will also involve "promotional activities such as attending film festivals, 
talk shows and press junkets" and "overseeing pre-production and post-production tasks, while 
producing the motion picture . 
. . to be shot in and The 
record also includes a summary of the oral agreement between the parties, several testimonial letters, 
articles, and promotional materials pertaining to films the Beneficiary has produced , and information 
pertaining to film festivals in the United States and abroad at which the films have been screened. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-R-LLC 
The Director denied the petition, finding that the submissions did not satisfy the initial evidentiary 
requirements. The Director also found that there were inconsistencies in the Petitioner's description of 
the Beneficiary's proposed duties as set forth in an Employee Deal Memo, which indicated that she 
would perform services as a producer, director, and screenwriter. In its appeal, the Petitioner offers a 
brief and additional evidence and maintains that the Director erred in determining that the record did 
not establish the Beneficiary's eligibility for the requested classification. After careful review, while 
the Petitioner has demonstrated that it is offering the Beneficiary a position as a producer, the record 
does not confirm that the Beneficiary is eligible for classification as an individual with extraordinary 
achievement in the motion picture or television industry. 
B. Nature of Proposed Employment 
The Director first found that the Petitioner provided inconsistent information regarding the 
Beneficiary's proposed duties in the United States, raising questions regarding whetl)er she will be 
performing the services specified in the petition. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(B), 
which applies to all 0 petitions, requires a copy of any written contract between the Petitioner and 
the Beneficiary. If a written contract does not exist, USCIS will accept evidence summarizing the 
terms of the oral agreement under which the Beneficiary will be employed, including the terms and 
conditions of the services to be provided, and confirming that she has accepted that offer. The 
petition indicates that the Petitioner is seeking to employ the Beneficiary as a producer of the film 
for a period of three years. The record also contains a summary of the terms 
of the oral agreement between the parties contained in the signed Employee Deal Memo. Although 
the Employee Deal Memo indicates that the Beneficiary's job title is "Producer, Writer, and 
Director," it provides a start date and salary limited to the producer position, with the salary payable 
in specified installments. We conclude that the Petitioner has provided a sufficient summary of the 
agreed to terms and conditions of the Beneficiary's prospective services as a producer. Therefore we 
withdraw the Director's determination on this issue. 
C. The Beneficiary's Eligibility under the Evidentiary Criteria 
The next 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 
categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(l)-(6). In denying the petition, the Director 
determined that the submissions do not satisfy any of these criteria. After careful review, we concur 
with the Director's finding that the Petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(A) or at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B). 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-R- LLC . 
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 
If the Petitioner establishes the Beneficiary has been nominated for or has been the recipient of, 
significant national or international awards or prizes in the particular field pursuant to 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(A), then it will have submitted the requisite initial evidence for 0-1 classification. 
The Petitioner initially provided documentation from the listing on the website 
showing that in 2014 the Beneficiary was nominated for a 
for for her role as producer of the film The Petitioner also 
submitted evidence that in 2015 the Beneficiary was awarded the prize for the film 
project in development, The record contains a press release with a 
photograph of the Beneficiary at the award ceremony 
for the prize, stating that the prize consisted of a supply of technical equipment valued at 
€10,000. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner sent additional documentation from indicating 
that the is a 
prestigious film prize which has been awarded annually by the 
since 1984. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to establish that the 
Beneficiary has been nominated for or has been the recipient of a significant national or international 
award or prize. On appeal, the Petitioner urges that the Beneficiary meets this criterion because 
"[t]he is considered to be the highest honor in filmmaking," and because the press 
release for the prize indicating the participation of producers form 30 different countries, 
"shows an international distribution." 
While the Petitioner documented the Beneficiary's receipt of the above nomination and award, it has 
not confirmed that nomination for either the above-referenced for 
or receipt of the award constitutes a significant national or international award or 
prize comparable to an Academy Award, the example in the regulations. For example, the Academy 
Award nominations are widely publicized within the movie industry and mainstream media and the 
awards ceremony is televised on a major network. The Petitioner has not provided documentation 
that those whose films are selected for a for or an 
award receive similar recognition. In addition, the Petitioner did not submit information or evidence 
about the selection process, and the testimonial letters do not address the significance of the awards. 
The Petitioner's statements regarding the importance and significance of the selection for either 
award, without supporting documentation, are insufficient to meet its burden of proof. 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 Comm'r 1972)). 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not satisfied the requirements of 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(A). Accordingly, the Petitioner must satisfy at least three of the six evidentiary 
criteria set forth at 8.C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B). We will address these criteria below. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-R- LLC 
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 Petitioner provided press releases and articles showing that the 
Beneficiary's previous films were screened at various film festivals and received awards including, 
but not limited to: 
• (2004); 
• (2005); 
• (2004); 
• (2003); 
• (2004); 
• (2004); 
• (2005); 
• (2003); 
• (2005); 
• {2004); 
• (2004); 
• {2005); 
• (2010); 
• (2010); 
• 
{2010); and 
• (2013) . 
The Petitioner also submitted information about the above awards. We find that, based on the 
Beneficiary's role as the producer of ' which won numerous awards, the Petition er 
established that the Beneficiary "has performed" in a lead or ~starring role for productions or events 
which have a distinguished reputation. 
In addition, 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 Employee Deal· Memo, the Beneficiary will work as a film producer on the ' 
The record includes an article about the film ' from the website 
which states that ' is also producing a remake of 1980's cult pic 
through with [the Beneficiary] .... which is set to go into 
production in the summer." On appeal, the Petitioner submits a letter from its vice president, 
affirming that "[the Beneficiary] raised $7,000,000.00 and will make the funds available for the 
production of the remake in that she has sent the petitioning company 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-R-LLC 
$250,000.00 which it has spent on the film's pre-production costs, and that more than 150 people 
will be employed in the production. On appeal, the Petitioner provides an additional article 
published at as evidence of the distinguished reputation of the ' 
The article states that the film, which "is based, in part, on [the] 1988 pic of the same 
name," will be produced and financed by a partnership between 
and the Petitioner. It also indicates that "the partnership will have a first option to provide 
financing for [the Petitioner's] feature film," and that the Beneficiary will be the film's producer. 
While the evidence shows that the Beneficiary will play a lead role in producing the 
it does not establish the distinguished reputation of the upcoming film as evidenced by 
critical reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, publications, contracts, or endorsements. 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. The record on appeal establishes that several 
production/distribution companies have an interest in developing the Beneficiary's film, but offers 
insufficient evidence pertaining to the distinguished reputation of the project itself. We cannot 
conclude, based on the limited documentation submitted, that and 
are of such renown that any project they consider placing into development can also be 
considered to have a distinguished reputation. Finally, while the evidence indicates that the 1980s 
version of' ' was a cult classic, such association does not necessarily lend the reputation 
of that film to the prequel. 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 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(2). On appeal, the Petitioner contends that it satisfies this criterion based upon its 
initial submission of a press release and an article, ' published at 
as well as articles published on and provided in its 
RFE response. 
The submitted press release, published on the website of the awarding commission at 
confirmed the Beneficiary's receipt of the 2015 
for the project in development '' ' and contained a photograph of her. The 
Petitioner did not submit the circulation or distribution data to document the significance of that 
website. The article contained an interview with the Beneficiary 
shortly before the film '' premiered at the While the article is 
about the Beneficiary, the record does not contain the circulation or distribution data to document the 
significance of the website Finally, the Petitioner's evidence in response to the 
RFE included an article published on the website mentioning the Beneficiary by 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-R- LLC 
name in discussing the film Upon review, this article satisfies the plain 
language requirements of the evidentiary criterion, and we 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). In support of this criterion the Petitioner submitted the Beneficiary's 
biography profile, indicating that she has performed as a producer for the Danish film production 
companies and The record also indicates that the Beneficiary 
previously worked as a producer for The profile also noted that while 
the Beneficiary was working for she was "the head of adult company 
The Petitioner provided insufficient corroborating information regarding the role the 
Beneficiary played with or other past employers. 
The Beneficiary's biography stated that she 'joined right after it was founded in 
1992, and was one of the key persons and co-owner of the company for 15 years until 2007." It 
described as a "major European independent production company," and indicated that her 
position was as an "expert in international financing . 
. . on a large number of 
international films" by including ' ' and ' 
It also explained that in 2008 the Beneficiary co-founded the Danish film production company 
with to produce his films, beginning with · The 
Petitioner provided a screenshot of page on the website describing that 
company's current organizational structure. 
The Petitioner also provided a letter from of in Denmark, with whom the 
Beneficiary collaborated on the film discussed the Beneficiary's past 
employment with stating that she "was part of developing from the ground up, from 
its inception until 2007," by which time he stated it "had grown into Northern Europe's largest 
production house." He related that the Beneficiary served as head of legal affairs at and 
executive produced several films directed by including ' He also related that 
the Beneficiary co-founded the Danish film production company with 
does not state, however, the basis of his knowledge of the Beneficiary's role either at 
or 
While the evidence establishes that the Beneficiary previously performed a producing role for 
the submitted evidence does not establish how her position fit within the overall hierarchy 
of the organization. Aleading 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 
evident from the Beneficiary's impact on the organization or the establishment's activities. The 
Beneficiary's performance in this role should establish whether the role was critical for an 
,, 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-R- LLC 
organization or establishment as a whole. While letter provides some information 
regarding the Beneficiary's duties at stating that she served as head of legal affairs and 
executive produced several films, he does not explain how the Beneficiary performed in a leading or 
a critical role for that organization as a whole; beyond stating that she was "part of developing 
from the ground up." The record also does not document the manner in which 
is authorized to represent or speak on behalf of nor does it contain evidence from 
any individual who appears to be in a position to represent them. 
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 of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. at 
500 n.2 (BIA 2008). Thus, the content of the 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. letter 
does not elucidate where the Beneficiary's position fell in the overall hierarchy of the companies that 
employed her or her impact on the organizations. Moreover, a screenshot :from 
homepage indicates that it was the production company for more than 240 movies, only 5 of which 
were produced by the Beneficiary. This documentation is not in accord with 
assessment that the Beneficiary's role at was leading or critical. Where an opinion is not in 
accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to accept or may 
give less weight to that evidence. Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 
In addition, the Petitioner did not corroborate that enjoys a distinguished reputation. The 
Petitioner provided the first page of a Wikipedia article about which states that the 
company has produced over 70 feature films and has become the in 
Scandinavia. We note that Wikipedia is an online, open source, collaborative encyclopedia that 
explicitly states it cannot guarantee the validity of its content. See General Disclaimer, Wikipedia 
(May 5, 2016, 1:05 PM), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer; Badasa v. 
Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). As with any submission we must evaluate the probative 
value and credibility of the documents provided. See Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. Keeping in 
mind Wikipedia's limitations, such an assessment calls for consideration of whether an entry's 
relevant information is corroborated, as well as the purpose for which it is presented. The record 
does not contain corroborating documentary evidence in the form of articles in newspapers, trade 
journals, publications, or testimonials pertaining to the reputation of 
The record establishes the Beneficiary's role as a co-founder of which may be 
categorized as providing services in a leading or .critical role for that organization. However, the 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-R - LLC 
Petitioner did not corroborate that enjoys a distinguished reputation. The 
record includes articles published at 
and 
that reference as the production company on the on the 
film project ' and the films · and ' 
These articles are not sufficient to meet this criterion because they do not refer to the organization's 
reputation, nor does the record establish that coverage of the organization's projects by these 
websites reflects a distinguished reputation. 
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 Employee Deal Memo indicate that the Beneficiary will work 
as a film producer on the ' The Petitioner has not demonstrated how the 
Beneficiary's role on this film rises to the level of a lead, starring or critical role for it. While the 
Petitioner has established the Beneficiary's job title on upcoming film projects, the submitted 
evidence does not describe how she will contribute to the petitioning production company as a 
whole, or how her position fits within the overall hierarchy of the company. 
Further, 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 of newspapers, trade journals, publications or testimonials. 
Statements made without supporting documentation are of limited probative value and are not 
sufficient to meet the Petitioner's burden of proof. 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). As evidence in support of this criterion, the Petitioner initially 
submitted the article · published on the website 
which provided a brief summary of the soon-to-be-released film by 
The Petitioner provided a screenshot from the Beneficiary's homepage on the 
website, with article excerpts referring to the upcoming film ' as much-
anticipated, from websites such as and The 
Director found that although these articles "suggest that the reviewers were eagerly awaiting the release 
of the Beneficiary's films," the evidence does not support a finding that the films were critically 
acclaimed successes. 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-R-LLC 
On appeal, the Petitioner refers to articles previously submitted in response to the RFE pertaining to the 
film· · a film in production on the date the petition was filed on February 5, 2016, 
published on the websites and The 
articles indicate that the film's production company, in association with French 
sales companies and has sold the film to various film distribution companies in 
numerous countries, including Again, while these articles suggest that the film 
distribution companies were investing in the film in the hopes that it would be a success upon its release 
and distribution, this evidence does not support a finding that the film was a critically acclaimed 
success. 
The Petitioner refers to additional articles previously submitted in response to the RFE pertaining to the 
film including an article published on noting that 
would star in the film, a screenshot from the film's homepage listing the Beneficiary's 
nomination for a 2014 and two articles, published on the websites 
and noting that the film won the 
The plain language of this criterion specifically requires documentation of the Beneficiary's 
commercially or critically acclaimed success as reported in published format. The Petitioner has not 
shown that the Beneficiary's receipt of a nomination for a for is an 
indicator of a record of commercial or critical success. Assuming that correlation 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 her 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. 
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. 
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)(5). In support of this criterion, the Petitioner initially submitted a letter 
from of in California, a motion picture and television producer 
with whom the Beneficiary worked on the films and 
described the Beneficiary as "an adept procurer of financing for films" and one who is "capable of 
making great creative contributions as a producer." 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided letters from representatives of two additional film 
production companies with whom the Beneficiary worked, including of 
in California, and the above-referenced letter from of 
in Denmark. a film and television producer, stated he "collaborated with [the 
Beneficiary] and her company on numerous projects that are now in active 
development," including "two television projects ... to be produced in the United States." He indicated 
11 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-R- LLC 
that his company has "become well acquainted with [the Beneficiary's] skills as a hands on producer" 
because "one of our actor clients stars in a film [she] produced recently," and that "one of our premiere 
director clients is directing a film [she] is producing, ' He described the Beneficiary's 
experience arranging film financing as "extensive," and related that her producing credits "have 
established [her] as one of Europe's leading producers of independent films, including working with 
Scandinavia's top directors such as and a film 
producer and production manager, collaborated with the Beneficiary on the film' · He 
emphasized that the Beneficiary's "importance for Scandinavian cinema cannot be underestimated, as 
she has helped shepherd the careers and works of the region's most notable filmmakers." 
Upon review of the letters, we concur with the Director's determination that the Petitioner has not 
established that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. The letters do not explain in factual terms the 
Beneficiary's achievements in the field. The issue for this regulatory criterion is whether the 
Beneficiary has received significant recognition for achievements from organizations, critics, 
government agencies, or other recognized experts in the field. The record lacks documentary evidence 
showing that the Beneficiary has received such recognition. 
Further, as previously noted, the Petitioner has provided confirmation that the Beneficiary's film 
was nominated in 2014 for a for and that 
in 2015 the Beneficiary won an for her project' ' It is the 
Petitioner's burden to establish that these awards constitute significant recognition. As discussed 
above, the Petitioner did not include sufficient supporting explanation or documentation that 
producers whose films are selected for a for or an 
award receive recognition within the movie industry. As such, that the record does not demonstrate 
that such selections constitute "significant recognition for achievements." The Petitioner has, 
therefore, not established that the Beneficiary satisfies the plain language requirements of this 
evidentiary criterion. 
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 Director determined that the Petitioner's evidence does not satisfy the evidentiary criterion at 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(6). The record does not contain documentation regarding the 
Beneficiary's past earnings. The Deal Memo indicated that Beneficiary will receive $550,000 for her 
work as a producer over the three-year period requested in the petition, which the Petitioner 
emphasizes equates to an annual salary of approximately $183,333. We agree with the Director's 
conclusion that the Petitioner has not established this salary is high in' relation to others in the field. 
Initially the Petitioner submitted, as a point of comparison, an O*Net printout from the Department of 
Labor, Office of Foreign Labor Certification, reflecting that the Level 4 prevailing wage for producers 
in the Petitioner's geographic area is $176,322 per year. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the 
Beneficiary commands a high salary in relation to the calculated average of the Level 1 to Level 4 
12 
Matter of S-R- LLC 
prevailing wages indicated on the O*Net printout, which amounts to $114,473. While the 
Beneficiary's salary slightly exceeds the Level4 prevailing wage for the Petitioner's area, the prevailing 
wage only reflects the average wage paid to all similarly employed workers in the same occupation in 
the same area. 20 C.F.R. § 655.10. Receipt of the prevailing wage for fully competent workers, 
alone, is insufficient to establish that a salary is high in relation to others in the field, as required by 
the plain language of the regulation. Upon review, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence that 
satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(6). 
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). Consequently, the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary is eligible for classification as a foreign national with extraordinary achievement in the 
motion picture or television industry. 
For the above stated reasons, the Petitioner has not met its burden to establish 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 S-R- LLC, ID# 13833 (AAO Dec. 13, 2016) 
13