All Cases

The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to satisfy the consultation requirements for the MPTV industry under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(5)(iii). Specifically, the petitioner did not submit a required written advisory opinion from an appropriate management organization. Evidence submitted for the first time on appeal was not considered because the petitioner had prior notice of the requirement.

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 appeal was dismissed because the Director initially denied the petition due to the Beneficiary's failure to meet the O-1 extraordinary ability criteria, specifically not demonstrating a major award or three of the eight evidentiary categories. Furthermore, a subsequent nonimmigrant petition for the same Beneficiary was approved, making the current appeal moot.

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.

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.