dismissed O-1B Case: Video Production

identifying da@ deleted 
prevent clearly unward 
invasion of persod ~*BCY 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Elomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 07 006 52866 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: MAR 0 5 2008 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 101 (a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 
 1 10 1 (a)(15)(0)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
\J 
sobert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 07 006 52866 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The matter 
is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a video production company. The petitioner seeks 0-1 nonimmigrant classification of the 
beneficiary, as an alien with extraordinary ability under section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1101(a)(15)(0)(i), in order to employ her temporarily in the United 
States as graphic design editor' for a period of three years at an unspecified salary: as a "freelance editor" on 
a "project to project basis" and only "possibly as a full-time employee." 
The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has a 
demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement in motion picture andlor television productions. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits arguments from counsel. 
Section 10 1 (a)( 15)(0)(i) of the Act provides classification to a qualified alien who has extraordinary ability in 
the arts, or 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. 
8 C.F.R. 5 2 14.2(o)(l)(ii)(A) states that the 0-1 classification applies to: 
(I) 
 An individual alien who has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and who is coming temporarily to the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; or 
(2) An alien who has a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement in motion picture 
andlor television productions and who is coming temporarily to the United States to continue 
work in the area of extraordinary achievement. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(0)(3)(ii) offers these pertinent definitions: 
Arts includes any field of creative activity or endeavor such as, but not limited to, fine arts, 
visual arts, culinary arts, and performing arts. Aliens engaged in the field of arts include not 
only the principal creators and performers but other essential persons such as, but not limited 
to, directors, set designers, lighting designers, sound designers, choreographers, 
1 
 We note that. according to documents submitted bv the ~etitioner. the beneficiarv has been in the United States since 
2003 as an H-'I- n a specialty occu~atio~, employkd by There is no evidence 
that her work fo . involves video editing; lists of her projects in the record do not mention the company. 
Citizenship and mmigration ervices records do not show that the beneficiary has ever been authorized to work for anv 
employer bther than i. Any work the beneficiary has performed on behalf of any other employer 
constitutes unauthorized employment and a violation of her nonirnmigrant status. 
In later correspondence, counsel stated that the beneficiary's salary will be "at least at the union level." 
WAC 07 006 52866 
Page 3 
choreologists, conductors, orchestrators, coaches, arrangers, musical supervisors, costume 
designers, makeup artists, flight masters, stage technicians, and animal trainers. 
Extraordinary ability in thefleld of arts means distinction. Distinction means a high level of 
achievement in the field of arts evidenced by a degree of skill and recognition substantially 
above that ordinarily encountered to the extent that a person described as prominent is 
renowned, leading, or well-known in the field of arts. 
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. 
Before we discuss the specific merits of the petition, we must address the question of which category, within 
the overall classification, applies to the beneficiary. Counsel protests the director's categorization of the 
beneficiary's work under motion picture and television productions rather than the arts: 
As an initial matter, the Service erroneously analyzed the beneficiary's qualifications and the 
supporting documents for classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in motion 
picture and television. The Service is in error because the beneficiary, a graphic artist and 
design editor, is 
 a member in the field of motion picture and television. While the 
beneficiary has worked on films and television productions, her graphic design work is not 
limited to film and television. The Service should have evaluated the beneficiary as an alien 
with extraordinary ability in the arts. This erroneous classification led to an unfair 
assessment of the beneficiary's qualifications. 
It is true that the petitioner, upon filing the petition, indicated that it sought to classify the beneficiary as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. The director, in the WE, requested evidence to establish that the 
beneficiary is an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. In the denial decision, the director referred instead 
to extraordinary achievement in motion picture and television productions. The director's action, however, 
resulted in no prejudicial error in this case. 
For 0-1 classification in the arts, section 101(a)(46) of the Act defines "extraordinary ability" as 
"distinction." The statute does not define "extraordinary achievement" in "motion picture and television 
productions," as used in section 10 1 (a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 2 14.2(0)(3)(ii) also 
defines "extraordinary ability in the field of arts" differently than "extraordinary achievement with respect to 
motion picture and television productions," but the enumerated evidentiary criteria to establish eligibility 
under either of these standards are exactly the same. Compare 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv) with 8 C.F.R. 
214.2(0)(3)(~). To meet either standard, the alien must have received or been nominated for a significant 
national or international award, or meet at least three of six alternate criteria. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(A)- 
(B), (v)(A)-(B). The regulatory criteria for aliens in the arts and motion picture or television industry differ in 
one other regard. For artists, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(C) allows for the submission of 
WAC 07 006 52866 
Page 4 
"comparable evidence" when the other criteria "do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." Yet 
counsel has never claimed (or shown) that the criteria at 8 C.F.R. €j 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(A) - (B) do not readily 
apply to the beneficiary's occupation. To the contrary, counsel claims that the beneficiary meets the criteria 
for artists at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iv)(B)(I), (3) and (5). These criteria are identical to those for aliens in the 
motion picture or television industry at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(v)(B)(l), (3) and (5). As will be discussed 
below, the petitioner in this case has met neither the award criterion nor any of the alternate criteria. 
For the purposes of this decision, the statutory and regulatory distinction between the arts and motion picture 
and television productions would be significant only if the petitioner can show that the beneficiary does not 
have a "demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement" in "motion picture and television productions," 
but that she does have "extraordinary ability in the . . . arts . . . which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim" pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act. Without such a showing, 
there is no basis for a finding that the director substantively erred by mentioning motion picture and television 
productions, rather than the arts, in the notice of decision. As we will explain, the petitioner has made no 
such showing. 
Moreover, the beneficiary's intended employment is clearly in the motion picture and television industry. All 
0-1 nonimmigrants, regardless of the exact field of endeavor, must seek entry into the United States to 
"continue work in the area of extraordinary ability" or "extraordinary achievement" pursuant to section 
101 (a)(l5)(0)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 4 2 14.2(o)(l)(ii)(A). The beneficiary can only continue work in a 
given area if she has already been working in that area. Whatever the beneficiary may have done in the past, 
the petitioner is a video production company. The record shows that the petitioner hired the beneficiary to 
work as an editor on a documentary entitled Gom Tang. To the extent that the petitioner may employ the 
beneficiary as an 0-1 nonimmigrant, her work clearly will be in motion picture and television productions, 
corporate videos and commercials. Because the petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary in motion picture 
and television productions, it was reasonable for the director to consider the petition in the context of "motion 
picture and television productions" rather than under the category of "arts." 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(~), an alien of extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or 
television industry must be recognized as having a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement as 
evidenced by either: (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 six specified forms of documentation. 
The petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary has won significant national or international awards or 
prizes to satisfy 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(v)(A). 
The petitioner did not initially specify which of the regulatory criteria the beneficiary was supposed to have 
met, but later communications from counsel indicate that documents and witness letters accompanying the 
initial filing purport to satisfy two related regulatory criteria: 
8 C. F. R. j 21 4.2(0) (3) (v) (B) (1): Evidence that the alien has performed, and will perform, 
services as a lead or starring participant in productions or events which have a distinguished 
WAC 07 006 52866 
Page 5 
reputation as evidenced by critical reviews, advertisements, publicity releases, publications 
contracts, or endorsements. 
8 C. F. R. $21 4.2(0) (3)(v) (B) (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. 
Most of the le 
 om individuals who have engaged the beneficiary's services as an editor on their 
video projects. 
 , President of the petitioning company, described the company and the beneficiary's 
intended role therein: 
[The petitioner is] a full service video production company, specializing in travel 
documentaries, broadcast commercials, and full length info-mercials. . . . 
[The petitioner] is a sole proprietorship owned and managed by me, 
 the only full 
time employee. It employs its production staff on a freelance basis contingent upon each 
project's needs. . . . 
In December of 2005 . . . I hired [the beneficiary] as the Chief Editor for 
documentary about immigrant neighborhoods in New York City. 
 We worked directly 
together for three months. The premise and presentation of 'Gom Tang' needed a technically 
savvy but creatively open minded editor who could masterfully mix various mediums (3D 
animation, graphics, and After Effects) into one seamless visual motif. A conventional film 
editor would not suffice, and due to budgetary reasons we could not hire specialists for each 
medium. 
It was a unique and daunting problem that I could resolve only by finding an individual, who 
had a mastery of all these various visual mediums. Luckily we found that person in [the 
beneficiary]. . . . [The beneficiary] proved to be an integral contributor to the project. She did 
this not by mechanically following my directions, but by editing two or three different 
versions of a certain scene through her own vision. . . . [Hler expertise in various multimedia, 
particularly After Effects and Photoshop, helped to smoothly combine all the visual assets of 
the project into one fully integrated common theme. 
beneficiary] again as an editor, and possibly as a full-time 
employee, if the 
 series gets distribution. But regardless of the future [of] 
as a freelance editor, on a project by project basis, 
tor [our] corporate videos and commercials. 
Other witnesses describe projects for which they have engaged the beneficiary's services as a video editor. 
ArtistICore Faculty in the Department of Media Studies and Film at the New School, New York, 
New York, stated: 
WAC 07 006 52866 
Page 6 
[The beneficiary] was my student in both my Cybernetics course and my Semiotics for 
Digital Producers course in the Graduate Media Studies Program at New School. . . . 
[The beneficiary] distinguished herself by demonstrating that she could combine abstract 
intelligence and graphic intelligence at a very high level. . . . Based on this work and 
recommendations from my fellow teachers, I subsequently asked her to work ten hours a 
week with me as an editor on my own video art work. Knowing that my work could again be 
shown at the prestigious Whitney Museum of American Art and the Museum of Modem Art 
(both in New York), I needed the talents and skills of a unique and highly skilled AVID 
editor with a strong aesthetic. [The beneficiary] exceeded my expectations. To date, the 
tapes she collaborated on making have been shown in such varied places as the Center for 
Contemporary Maine Art, Rockport, Maine (A show on water); Haystack, Deer Island, 
Maine, 2004 (a conference on creativity and the hand); and V bienal, Quito, Equador [sic], 
2004 (an international festival for the arts). . . . 
Based on my experience working in the field, I would say [the beneficiary] is technically very 
sophisticated in a way that sets her above others in her profession. . . . [The beneficiary's] 
achievements with respect to my work involving complicated images of water using varying 
speeds and directions as well as multiple video tracks with a range of special effects 
demonstrated a complex skill. Because of her extraordinary contribution, I gave her credit as 
an associate editor, an honor which is seldom bestowed on someone with her limited 
professional experience; this credit also reflects the high level of her achievements. 
9 at Medgar Evers College of the City University of New York engaged the 
beneficiary's editing services for a "documentary project . . . based on a person named one of the first 100 
dance treasures of the United States. 
 This is a major pr 
 dance in America with levels of 
complexity much greater than on the average documentary." 
 did not specify whether or not, at 
the time of writing, the project had been completed or released, nor did he provide a title or even identify by 
name the subject of the documentary. (Other materials in the record identify the subject as Chuck Davis, 
Artistic Director of Dance Africa and leader of the African American Dance Ensemble.) 
of Parallel Voice Productions produced "Songs of the Spirit, a multi-artist concert series that 
popular music and spoken word performances with traditional sacred music of 
diverse faiths and cultures," and engaged the beneficiary when "almost three hours of. . . raw footage that 
was below broadcast quality (from a single, stationary camera)" "needed to be edited down to less than 10 
minutes for a promotional DVD." 
press release from KickApps Corporation as a weekly "episodic video series developed for internet and 
mobile phone distribution. . . . Episodes range from one minute and thirty seconds to four minutes. 
president of worked with the beneficiary in 1997 "on 'Travelers,' an 
show airing globally on The Discovery Travel [sic]" and "[r]ecently . . . contracted [the beneficiary's] editing 
services to create a reel." 
WAC 07 006 52866 
Page 7 
E 
, Video Production Editor at MTV Networks, stated: 
I became aware of [the beneficiary's] ability as a graphic artist on my film THE CALLER. . . . 
Based on this experience, I recommended her to my colleagues at MTV Networks were she 
worked as a Broadcast Designer and Editor. Her unique style was showcased with much 
success when we re-created scenes [from] THE MATRIX RE-LOADED, re-cutting and 
composing the end scene of the movie to incorporate MTVN properties. 
She excelled on the project: Affiliate Sales and Marketing Puerto Rico Retreat, which were 
shown at the ASM Puerto Rico Retreat. 
New York-based artist Hector Cardenas affirms that the beneficiary's project for MTV Networks "was a kick 
off tape for a Sales Retreat Meeting." There is no indication that the beneficiary edited any product intended 
for commercial broadcast, as opposed to in-house screening at corporate functions. 
Artistic Director of the Mahaiwe Performing Arts Center states that the beneficiary "has 
worked for me for the past two years developing and producing promotional DVD's for the Mahaiwe 
Performing Arts Center. Each year she has taken our whole season and turned it into an extraordinary 
thirteen minute promotional video which we have used to present our season to press, funders and at events 
with twenty to seven hundred participants." 
A section of the petitioner's initial submission bears the label "Publicity About Work And Organizations." 
The term is misleading because there is no evidence that the beneficiary's work, as such, has earned any 
publicity at all. Rather, all of the documented publicity can be divided into two subjects: Chuck Davis (and 
his various dance groups) and the Mahaiwe Performing Arts Center. 
The record establishes the national reputation of 
 African American Dance Ensemble and 
Dance Africa, but the beneficiary has never worked for those or anizations. Rather, she worked for a 
filmmaker who, in turn, wished to create a documentary about It does not follow that the 
beneficiary, by working on the documentary, earned a reputation comparable to that of and his 
groups. We note that, while the evidence shows national recognition of the ensemble itself, there is no 
evidence to establish a comparable reputation of the documentary or of the entity that produced it (if, in fact, 
the documentary was complete as of the filing date). 
Articles from such newspapers as The Berkshire Eagle and Berkshire Week discuss live musical and dance 
performances at the Mahaiwe Performing Arts Center. Because these are live performances, rather than video 
recordings, the talents of a video editor did not come into play except when collecting highlights of 
performances taped for promotional purposes. There is no evidence that the Mahaiwe Performing Arts 
Center, which first opened in 2005, enjoys more than a regional reputation. 
WAC 07 006 52866 
Page 8 
In a section marked "Work Of The Beneficiary," the petitioner submitted materials relating to the New York 
Sinfonietta. The petitioner did not explain, at the time, how the beneficiary is connected to the New York 
Sinfonietta. A musical ensemble that performs before live audiences has no readily apparent need for the 
services of a video editor. We have not found the beneficiary's name in any of the promotional materials and 
programs from the New York Sinfonietta that the petitioner has submitted, and none of the petitioner's 
witnesses appear to have mentioned the ensemble. 
The petitioner submitted various promotional materials and articles relating to other documentaries. None of 
this evidence sets the documentaries apart from the countless other documentaries produced and released each 
year, each of which presumably has been shaped by one or more editors. Involvement in making a film does 
not equate to recognition or acclaim in motion picture and television productions or, for that matter, to 
distinction or prominence in the arts. 
On October 18, 2006, the director issued a request for evidence (RFE), instructing the petitioner to submit 
additional evidence to satisfy the regulatory criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(0)(3)(iv) and its subsections 
(which, as noted above, are essentially identical to those listed at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(0)(3)(v) and its 
subsections). The director acknowledged the petitioner's submission of witness letters, but stated: "the 
opinions of individuals in the field cannot form the cornerstone of a successful claim for this classification. 
. . . An individual with sustained national or international acclaim should be able to produce ample unsolicited 
materials reflecting that acclaim." 
In response, the petitioner submitted materials about various film festivals. 
 Counsel stated that the 
beneficiary edited films shown at those festivals, and thereby performed services as a lead or starring 
participant in productions or events which have a distinguished reputation. 
 The petitioner has not 
persuasively shown that the beneficiary was "a lead or starring participant" in the films she edited. 
Counsel stated that witness "taught and collaborated with the beneficiary on video art work that 
appeared at the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York, the Museum of Modem Art in New York, 
Center for Contemporary Maine Art, and the V bieneal [sic] in Quito, Equador [sic]." The Whitney Museum 
and the Museum of Modem Art (MOMA) have distinguished reputations, but once again, the petitioner has 
not shown that a film editor plays a lead, starring or critical role for those establishments. Furthermore, while 
stated that some of his work has appeared at the venues named, he did not state that he 
collaborated with the beneficiary on works that appeared at the Whitney or MOMA. He stated only that he 
sought a "highly skilled editor" because his "work could again be shown at the prestigious Whitney Museum 
of American Art and the Museum of Modern Art" (emphasis added). 
Counsel also stated that the beneficiary worked "as multimedia coordinator of the New York Sinfonietta. 
Evidence includes information about the prestige of the New York Sinfonietta." The materials submitted 
regarding the New York Sinfonietta do not mention any "multimedia coordinator." This lack of published 
credit or other evidence from the New York Sinfonietta regarding the beneficiary's role suggests that, even if 
the beneficiary is in fact the organization's multimedia coordinator, the organization itself does not consider 
the beneficiary's role to be leading, starring, or critical. Furthermore, the petitioner documented the existence 
WAC 07 006 52866 
Page 9 
of the New York Sinfonietta, but the record does not establish that it enjoys "prestige" or an otherwise 
distinguished reputation when compared to other comparable musical ensembles. 
The director denied the petition on November 24, 2006. In denying the petition, the director found that the 
petitioner had attempted, without success, to meet the two criteria relating to lead, starring or critical roles. 
In the denial notice, the director stated: 
the letter fro- states that "Because of her extraordinary contribution, I gave her 
credit as an associate editor, an honor which is seldom bestowed on someone with her limited 
professional experience. . . ." It should be noted, aliens seeking 0-1 classification have 
usually reached a level of expertise that has garnered national or international recognition. 
indicates the beneficiary has "limited professional experience." 
On appeal, counsel states that the petitioner had already identified film festivals in which in which the 
beneficiary participated, and that "[d]ocumentation showing the prestige of these film festivals was submitted 
with the response to the WE." Mere involvement with these festivals does not amount to a lead, starring or 
critical role therein, and the petitioner has not shown that the beneficiary stood out in any way from the 
hundreds of other individuals who contributed to the many films shown at those festivals. 
Counsel contends that the director improperly referred to "national or international recognition" because the 
regulation does not mention or require recognition at that level. As we have already noted, counsel has 
insisted that the petition should be considered under the category of extraordinary ability in the arts, which 
requires "sustained national or international acclaim" pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act and the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(1)(ii)(A)(I). While an alien in the motion picture or television industry is 
not required to demonstrate national or international acclaim, the statute and regulation require such aliens to 
show "extraordinary achievement" in their field. Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
5 1101(a)(15)(0)(i); 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(ii). National or international recognition is consistent with the 
regulatory definition of extraordinary achievement at 8 C.F.R. 5 2 14.2(0)(3)(ii). The director did not impose 
an additional burden of proof and we do not read his passing reference to "national or international 
recognition" as going beyond the statute or the regulation. 
Counsel further contends that the director took 
 s comments out of context. The director simply 
placed the quotation in context before re-quotin the reference to the beneficiary's "limited professional 
experience." It is, rather, c h comments out of context, repeating on appeal 
the incorrect assertion that work with the benejkiary has appeared at the Whitney Museum and 
the MOMA. 
Counsel asserts that "the beneficiary's contribution was both crucial and indispensable" to "the world- 
renowned Mahaiwe Performance Center." Even if that center were shown to be "world-renowned," which is 
not the case here, the beneficiary's contribution to the center was limited to editing a promotional video 
created for fund-raising purposes. We concur with the director's determination that the beneficiary does not 
meet the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(v)(B)(I), (3). 
WAC 07 006 52866 
Page 10 
8 C. F. R. J 214.2(0) (3) (v)(B) (5): Evidence that the alien has received signrJicant recognition 
for achievements fiom organizations, critics, government agencies, or other recognized 
experts in thejield 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 record mentions only one instance of what could be called recognition of the beneficiary. = 
Mayor of Muncie, Indiana, stated in a letter: 
[The beneficiary] is an alumnus [sic] of Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana. During her 
tenure at Ball State University, she demonstrated the finest qualities of scholarship and a 
strong motivation to succeed at whatever goals she set. . . . 
In addition to her studies, [the beneficiary] served as an officer for the Korean Student 
Association at Ball State University. In this position she demonstrated strong leadership, 
creativity, and organizational skills and helped to develop a dynamic international student 
organization and promoted various cultural activities. She also assisted many international 
students who needed help adjusting to a new and different culture and environment. 
As Mayor of Muncie, 1 presented [the beneficiary] the City of Muncie Honorary Citizenship 
Award upon her graduation from Ball State University, due to her contribution to the 
development of better international understanding. 
The "City of Muncie Honorary Citizenship Award" constitutes 
 governmental entity, 
but the petitioner has not shown that it is signzjicant recognition, or that 
 is a recognized expert 
in the field in which the alien is engaged. Indeed, there is no indication that the beneficiary's receipt of the 
award was based in any way on her work as a video editor. himself never mentions video 
editing in his letter, stating instead that the beneficiary earned the award "due to her contribution to the 
development of better international understanding" through her work with international students. 
 The 
petitioner has not explained why this letter is relevant to the petition. 
In denying the petition, the director found that the witness letters "do not mention what significant recognition 
for achievements the beneficiary has received." On appeal, counsel does not contest, rebut or even mention 
this finding. 
Counsel's appeal is focused on only two of the six regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(v)(B), and 
because the petitioner must satis@ at least three of those criteria, we could not approve the petition even if we 
found all of counsel's arguments on appeal to be credible and well-founded in the facts. We have not made 
such a finding regarding counsel's arguments. 
The record does not establish that the beneficiary has a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement in 
motion picture or television production. The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has received a 
WAC 07 006 52866 
Page 11 
major, internationally recognized award or that she satisfies at least three of the evidentiary criteria specified 
in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(0)(3)(v)(B). 
 Consequently, the beneficiary is not eligible for 
nonimmigrant classification under section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act and the petition cannot be approved. 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 557(b) ("On appeal 
from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in making the initial 
decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also, Janka v. US. Dept. of Transp., 
NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority has been long recognized by the 
federal courts. See, e.g. Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
Under this recognized power of de novo review, the AAO finds another ground, beyond the director's 
decision, that precludes approval of the petition. 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(0)(2)(ii)(C) requires that the petition be 
accompanied by an explanation of the nature of the event or activities, the beginning and ending dates for the 
events and activities and a copy of any itinerary. 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(0)(3)(ii) defines an "event" as an activity 
such as, but not limited to, a scientific project, conference, convention, lecture series, tour, exhibit, business 
project, academic year, or engagement. 
The petitioner failed to submit the required initial evidence relating to a specified event. Judging from 
undated letter it does not appear that the beneficiary is coming to work on any particular event or 
actlvlty at allexplained that he intends to hire the 
 editor, on a project 
by project basis," and only "possibly as a full-time employee" if the 
 project is picked up for 
distribution. The petitioner failed to specify any future projects for which firm plans exist. Even if the 
petitioner had demonstrated the beneficiary's eligibility for the classification requested, which it has not done, 
the petition could not be approved an assigned a validity period in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(6)(iii) 
because the alien is not coming to accomplish a specified event or activity. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternative 
basis for dismissal. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains 
entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.