dismissed O-1B Case: Motion Picture And Television

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 15, 2024 In Re: 34043224 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, a recruiting agency, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a brand ambassador 
in the motion picture or television industry. To do so, the Petitioner seeks 0-1 nonimmigrant visa 
classification, available to foreign nationals who can demonstrate a record of extraordinary achievement, 
and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(O)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(O)(i). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not 
satisfy, as required , the evidentiary criteria applicable to individuals of extraordinary achievement in 
the motion picture or television industry: nomination for or receipt of a significant national or 
international prize or award, or at least three of six possible forms of documentation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(A)-(B). The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
As relevant here, section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Act establishes 0-1 classification for an individual who 
has, with regard to motion picture and television productions, a demonstrated record of extraordinary 
achievements that 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 achievement. Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS) regulations include the following definition: "[e}xtraordinary 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." 8 C.F.R. 
214.2( o )(3)(ii). 
Next, DHS regulations set forth the initial evidentiary criteria for establishing an individual's record 
of extraordinary achievement. First, a petitioner can demonstrate the beneficiary's nomination for, or 
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.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(A) . If the 
petitioner does not offer this information, then it must submit sufficient qualifying exhibits that satisfy 
at least three of the six categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(l)-(6). 
The submission of documents satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for 0-1 classification. See 59 Fed. Reg. 41818, 41820 (Aug. 15, 1994) ("The 
evidence submitted by the petitioner is not the standard for the classification, but merely the 
mechanism to establish whether the standard has been met."). Accordingly, where a petitioner 
provides qualifying evidence satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of the record and the quality of the evidence shows eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(o)(i) 
of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii), (v). 
II. ANALYSIS 
At the outset, the Petitioner does not challenge or address the Director's decision regarding the 
Beneficiary's eligibility for a nomination or receipt of a significant national or international prize or 
award under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(A) .1 Rather, the Petitioner seeks to demonstrate the 
Beneficiary's sustained acclaim and recognition of achievements through evidence corresponding to 
the six categories of evidence under 8 C.F.R § 214.2( o )(3)(v)(B)(I)-( 6). The Director determined the 
Beneficiary satisfied only one criterion-high salary under 8 C.F.R § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(6). On appeal, 
the Petitioner maintains the documentation satisfies five additional categories of evidence. As 
discussed below, we find the evidence does not fulfill at least three criteria, as required. 
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. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(I). 
This criterion requires evidence of the beneficiary's past lead or starring participation in distinguished 
productions or events, and the beneficiary's prospective lead or starring participation in distinguished 
productions or events. 2 As it relates to the Beneficiary's futuristic participation, the Petitioner's initial 
cover letter did not specifically identify any prospective productions or events that have distinguished 
reputations in which the Beneficiary would perfonn as a lead or star. Instead, the Petitioner briefly 
discussed the Beneficiary's previous experience. In the request for evidence (RFE), the Director indicated 
that "USCIS also notes in reference to future events and productions, you only provided an employment 
contract with your organization and that the record lacks direct evidence to show the beneficiary's 
intended productions will be distinguished." In response, the Petitioner's cover letter did not discuss the 
Beneficiary's anticipated productions or events; rather, the cover letter mentioned the Beneficiary's 
"illustrious 25-year career in Colombia." Furthermore, the Petitioner submitted a letter claiming the 
1 Issues and prior eligibility claims not raised on appeal are waived. See, e.g., Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330, 336 
n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing Matter ofR-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012)). 
2 See generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual, M.4(E)(2)(appendix) , https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
2 
Beneficiary "will lend his distinctive voice to our promotional efforts" and "will spearhead the production 
of a podcast." However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how its self-serving letter qualifies for the 
required regulatory documentation of "reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, publications 
contracts, or endorsements" under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(l). 
On appeal, the brief states that "we are submitting a revised itinerary. This updated itinerary provides 
comprehensive details of [the Beneficiary's] intended activities, engagements, and events during the 
proposed stay in the United States." Because the Petitioner was put on notice and given a reasonable 
opportunity to provide this evidence, we will not consider this documentation for the first time on 
appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(ll) (requiring all requested evidence be submitted together at one 
time); Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) (declining to consider new evidence 
submitted on appeal because "the petitioner was put on notice of the required evidence and given a 
reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the denial"). Even if we considered the 
evidence, as discussed above, the Petitioner did not comply with the evidentiary requirements of 
"reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, publications contracts, or endorsements" under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(l). 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not show the Beneficiary will perform services as a lead or starring 
participant in productions or events that have distinguished reputations. As such, we need not decide 
on whether the Beneficiary has performed such services in past productions or events with 
distinguished reputations. 3 
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. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(2). 
To meet this criterion, the petitioner must provide evidence demonstrating the beneficiary is 
recognized for achievements nationally or internationally, in the form of critical reviews or other 
published materials in major newspapers, trade journals, magazines, or other publications, which may 
include online publications. 4 In determining whether the submitted evidence demonstrates the 
beneficiary has achieved national or international recognition for achievements, officers consider both 
the content of the published material and the level of recognition enjoyed by the publication in which 
it appears. 5 
The Petitioner argues that it provided coverage of the Beneficiary in El Tiempo, TVy Novel as, Q Huba, 
15 Minutos, Elenco, and Vea magazines. The record reflects that at initial filing, the Petitioner 
provided three articles from TVy Novelas, one article from 15 Minutes, four articles from Elenco, and 
three articles from Vea. The record does not support the Petitioner's claim that it submitted material 
from El Tiempo or Q Hubo for this criterion, at either initial filing or in response to the Director's 
RFE. 
3 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" 
on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 T&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (declining 
to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant did not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
4 See also generally 2 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(E)(2)(appendix). 
s Id. 
3 
As it relates to the content, the material does not represent the Beneficiary's achievement of national 
or international recognition for achievements. Instead, the articles mention the Beneficiary in 
connection to various projects without reflecting the Beneficiary's achievement of national or 
international recognition. For instance, thel 12015 article from Vea states 
"[t]hat's precisely what the team of the program I I led by the fiery and controversial 
I I along with the other relentless pursuers of information I I [the 
Beneficiary],~-------------------------~ intends to do 
now." The Beneficiary was briefly mentioned one time as one of the individuals without indicating 
the Beneficiary's national or international recognition for achievements. In fact, the majority of the 
material covers the personal aspect of the Beneficiary's life rather than coverage of the Beneficiary's 
professional achievements. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not present evidence before the Director demonstrating the magazines 
constitute major newspapers, trade journals, magazines, or other publications, as required under 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(2). 6 Although the Petitioner submits background and circulation 
information for the first time on appeal, we will not consider evidence that was not presented before 
the Director. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(ll); Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. at 766. 
Finally, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary "has also been featured in online publications and 
internet articles, reaching a diverse and widespread audience." However, the Petitioner does not 
identify the online publications and internet articles, nor does it reference any evidence to support its 
assertions. See Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (declining to address a "passing 
reference" to an argument in a brief that did not provide legal support). 
For all these reasons, the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed, and will perform, in a lead, starring, or critical 
role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation evidenced 
by articles in newspapers, trade journals, publications, or testimonials. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(3). 
This criterion differs from the first criterion, which is specific to productions or events. 7 In addition, 
this criterion requires evidence of the beneficiary's current or past lead, starring, or critical role for a 
distinguished organization or establishment, including a distinguished division or department of such 
an entity; and the beneficiary's prospective lead, starring, or critical role for a distinguished 
organization or establishment, including a distinguished division or department of such an entity. 8 
The Director determined the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary has performed, and will 
perform, in a lead, starring, or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished 
reputation. On appeal, the Petitioner exclusively argues the Beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion 
6 See also generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(E)(2)(appendix) (providing that favorable coverage or 
publication of the beneficiary's work in major media, as demonstrated by high relative circulation, readership, or 
viewership figures, could establish national or international recognition of the beneficiary's achievements). 
7 See also generally 2 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(E)(2)(appendix). 
8 Id. 
4 
based on his past performances for organizations or establishments. The Petitioner does not contest 
the Director's decision regarding the Beneficiary's prospective performances. Issues and prior 
eligibility claims not raised on appeal are waived. See, e.g., O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. at 336 n.5. 
Therefore, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary's eligibility for the futuristic part of this 
criterion. Since the identified basis for denial regarding this criterion is dis positive of the Petitioner's 
appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate argument regarding the 
Beneficiary's satisfaction of the past aspect of this criterion. See Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25-26; see 
also L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 516, n.7. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show the Beneficiary qualifies for every element of this 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. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(4). 
This criterion requires evidence in the form of publications establishing the beneficiary's record of major 
commercial or critically acclaimed success.9 The publications may include print or online publications 
or transcripts of radio or video coverage. 10 The Petitioner contends the Beneficiary meets this criterion 
based on his Best Voice Over A ward at the Festival and recei t of the I I I IAward by the Although the 
Petitioner does not reference any evidence supporting this criterion, the record reflects the Petitioner 
submitted photographs and certificates from the awarding entities. 11 However, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate how the evidence conforms with the regulatory documentation of "trade journals, major 
newspapers, or other publications" consistent with 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(4). The Petitioner did 
not offer evidence in the form of publications reporting on the Beneficiary's major commercial or 
critically acclaimed successes, as required by this regulatory criterion. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary fulfills this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The 
Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary meets four additional criteria. Although the Petitioner 
claims the Beneficiary's eligibility for a further criterion on appeal, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(5), 
we need not reach this ground, as well as a review of the Director's favorable determination of the 
high salary criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(6), because it cannot fulfill the initial 
evidentiary requirement of at least three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0 )(3)(v)(B). We also need not 
provide a totality determination to establish whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the Beneficiary's 
very high level of accomplishment evidenced by a degree or skill and recognition significantly above 
that ordinarily encountered to the extent that the Beneficiary is recognized as outstanding, notable, or 
leading in the field. See section 10l(a)(l5)(O)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) and (v). 12 
9 See also generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(E)(2)(appendix). 
10Id. 
11 None of the articles provided under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B)(2) mention these awards. 
12 See also 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(B). 
5 
Accordingly, we reserve these issues. 13 Consequently, the Petitioner has not shown the Beneficiary's 
eligibility for the 0-1 visa classification as an individual of extraordinary achievement. The appeal will 
be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate basis 
for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
13 See Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25-26; see also L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 516, n.7. 
6