Artistic Director And Drama And Art Teacher

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish the Beneficiary met at least three of the regulatory O-1 criteria. Specifically, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary would perform in leading roles in distinguished productions or events, nor did the provided articles reflect national or international recognition for achievements. The AAO did not need to review other criteria or the totality of the evidence as the initial evidentiary requirement was not met.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate the Beneficiary met at least three of the six evidentiary criteria for extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or television industry. Specifically, the Petitioner did not provide adequate documentation for future lead/starring roles in distinguished productions, failed to show national/international recognition through major publications, did not establish future critical roles for distinguished organizations, and presented awards as certificates rather than published reports of commercial success. The AAO declined to review the Director's favorable finding on high salary or other criteria, as the overall threshold of three criteria was not met.

The motion was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to specify any factual or legal errors in the prior decision, instead restating previous arguments. The evidence provided did not satisfy the required three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B). Additionally, the claim for commercial success was not considered because it was raised for the first time on appeal.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to satisfy the written advisory opinion requirements from the appropriate consulting entities. Specifically, the Petitioner did not provide a consultation from the Directors Guild of America (DGA) for the Beneficiary's directing duties, nor did they establish that DGA was not the appropriate labor organization. Although a WGAE letter was provided for screenwriting, it explicitly stated it had no jurisdiction over directing and producing. An AMPTP letter was submitted on appeal but was not considered as it was not provided with the RFE response.