dismissed O-1B Case: Photography

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-F-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 5, 2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an agent, seeks to represent the Beneficiary during his temporary employment in the 
United States as a professional photographer. To do so, the Petitioner seeks 0-1 nonimmigrant visa 
classification, available to foreign nationals who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through 
sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(l5)(0)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(0)(i). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not satisfy the evidentiary criteria applicable to individuals of extraordinary ability in the arts, either 
a significant national or international award or at least three of six possible forms of documentation. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A)-(B). The Petitioner appealed the matter to us, and we dismissed the 
appeal. 1 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider. With the motion. the Petitioner submits a letter 
from the Beneficiary, asserting that he is eligible for 0-1 classification. Upon review. we will deny 
the motion. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The requirements of a 
motion to a motion to reconsider arc located at 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)(3 ). 
As relevant here, section 101 (a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act establishes 0-1 classification for an individual who 
has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been 
demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim, 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. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations define 
"extraordinary ability in the field of arts" as ''distinction." and ''distinction .. as ··a high level of 
achievement in the field of arts evidenced by a degree of skill and recognition substantially ahove that 
1 
See Matter (J(C-F-, lD# 327618 (AAO June I, 20 17). 
.
Matter [![C-F-
ordinarily encountered to the extent that a person described as prominent is renowned, leading, or well­
known in the field of arts." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). 
Next, DHS regulations set forth alternative evidentiary criteria for establishing a beneficiary' s 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of achievements. A petitioner may submit evidence eith er of 
nomination for or receipt of "significant national or international awards or prizes" such as ··an 
Academy Award , an Emmy , a Gramm y, or a Director 's Guild Award ," or of at least three of six listed 
categories of documents. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A)-(B). If the petitioner demonstrates that the 
listed criteria do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, it may submit comparable evidence 
to establish eligibility . 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(C). 
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 ). In 
Matter (?(Chawathe. 25 I&N Dec. 369 , 376 (AAO 201 0). we held that. ·'truth is to be determined not 
by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality.'· 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 totalit y of the 
evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true.'' !d. Accordingly , where a 
petitioner provides qualifying evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv). we will determine whether 
the totality of the record shows eligibility under section 101(a)(l5)(o)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( 0 )( 1 )(ii). 
II. ANALYSIS 
For purposes of a motion to reconsider, the question is whether our decision was correct based on the 
record that existed at the time of adjudication. As the Petitioner has not indicated or established that 
the Beneficiary has received a significant national or international award or prize like the Academy 
Award, she must demonstrate that he satisfies at least three of the six regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(l) -(6). In dismissing the appeal, we found that the exhibits did not satisfy the 
following contested criteria: leading or starring participant in distinguished productions or events 
under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(J); leading , starting. or critical roles in distingui shed 
organizations or establishments under 8 C .F.R. § 214.2(o )(3 )(iv)(B)(3): reco gnition for achie vement s 
evidenced by critical reviews or published material under 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2) : and 
significant recognition for achievements from organizations. critics. government agencies . or other 
recognized expert s under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3 )(iv)(B)(5). 
On motion, the Petitioner does not specifically address our findings under the regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(l)-(3) and (5). Instead, in an accompanying letter, the Beneficiary 
asserts that he has "become more than a common photographer.'' He indicates that he has 
"photographed not only of Argentina but also of Paraguay." In addition , 
the Beneficiary states that he "covered a m Paraguay" and "photographed 
official functions of the court and the of Paragua y." He 
further contends that he presented a video of his pictures at and served as 
2 
.
Matter qfC-F-
lead photographer of both the and the 
Lastly, the Beneficiary notes that he owns a ··wedding 
photography and social events studio in Argentina." The Petitioner's motion, however, does not 
explain how our appellate findings were based on an incorrect application of law or policy. Rather, 
the Beneficiary's letter provided on motion mirrors the letter he offered in support of the appeal. 
The information in the Beneficiary's latest letter was properly considered in our appellate decision. 
On appeal, we conducted a de novo review of the record and ultimately concluded that the 
Beneficiary did not satisfy at least three of the evidentiary criteria specified in the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B) or meet the comparable evidence requirements at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(3)(iv)(C). The 
Beneficiary's statements do not establish that our appellate findings were 
based on an incorrect application of the law, regulation, or DHS policy, nor does the motion 
demonstrate that our latest decision was erroneous based on the evidence before us at the time of the 
decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not met the requirements of a motion to reconsider. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner's motion does not demonstrate that our previous decision was incotTcct. and it does 
not establish that the Beneficiary qualities as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofC-F-, ID# 769399 (AAO Dec. 5, 20 17) 
3