dismissed O-1A Case: Animal Science

Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 28511671 Date: OCT. 2, 2023 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, an agent, seeks to classify the Beneficiary, an animal science researcher, as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. This 0-1 nonimmigrant visa classification is available to 
individuals 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)(O)(i) , 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(15)(O)(i) . 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center initially denied the petition on the following three 
grounds: 1) the Petitioner did not meet the conditions as an agent, 2) the Petitioner did not satisfy the 
advisory opinion requirement, and 3) the Petitioner did not show the Beneficiary received a major a 
major, internationally recognized award or at least three of eight possible forms of documentation. On 
motion, the Director determined the Petitioner met the advisory opinion requirement but did not 
overcome the other two grounds. 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
As relevant here, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(2)(i) provides 
that a petition may only be filed 
by a U.S. employer, a U.S. agent, or a foreign employer through a U.S. agent. In addition, a U.S. agent 
may file a petition in cases involving workers who are traditionally self-employed or workers who use 
agents to arrange short term employment on their behalf with numerous employers, and in cases where 
a foreign employer authorizes the agent to act in its behalf. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(iv)(E). 
As it relates to a beneficiary, section 10l(a)(l5)(O)(i) of the Act establishes 0-1 classification for an 
individual who has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics that 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 science, education, business, or athletics" as "a level of 
expertise indicating that the person is one of the small percentage who have arisen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor." 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 either of "a major, internationally recognized award, such as a Nobel 
Prize," or of at least three of eight listed categories of documents. 8 C.F .R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(A)-(B). 
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 sustained national or international acclaim 
such that the individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 
section 10l(a)(l5)(o)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii), (iii). 
II. ANALYSIS 
At initial filing, the Petitioner submitted an "AGENT - RESEARCHER IN ANIMAL SCIENCE 
REPRESENTATION AGREEMENT," signed by both the Petitioner and Beneficiary. Specific terms 
include: 
• The Beneficiary "agrees to retain [the Petitioner] ... in connection with the matter of 
representation in contracts and negotiations thereof as a RESEARCHER." 
• The Petitioner "has agreed to negotiate contracts and agreements on [the Beneficiary's] behalf 
for the rendition ofresearch services." 
• The Petitioner "agrees to use all reasonable efforts to procure and negotiate employment for 
[the Beneficiary] as a Researcher in Animal Products." 
In addition, the Petitioner provided an itinerary listing 19 anticipated events with organizations across 
the United States from September 2021 to April 2023. The Director issued a request for evidence 
stating, in part, that the Petitioner "did not submit documentation to demonstrate these organizations 
are aware of the agreement for your representation." In response, the Petitioner claimed that its 
submission of the agent agreement complied with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(2)(iv)(E)(l ). 
Further, the Petitioner asserted that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(C) relating to itinerary 
for events and activities "does not require evidence to document an established relationship with these 
entities." 
In denying the petition, the Director found that "[b ]ased on the verbiage in the contract, it appears [the 
Petitioner is] acting as an agent representing both the [Beneficiary] and the [Beneficiary's] 
employers," and "[i]n order to comply with the regulations, contractual documentation between the 
beneficiary and other employers is required." On motion, the Petitioner argued that "[i]n this 
agreement, the parties stipulate that the [Petitioner] will negotiate contracts and agreements on [the 
Beneficiary's] behalf for the research activities," and "[n]owhere in the contract it is shown or implied 
that the Petitioner will represent both the employer and the employee." In response, the Director 
stated: 
2 
[The Petitioner's] statements indicate that "the [Petitioner] will negotiate contracts and 
agreements on Researcher's behalf for the research services." As such, [the 
Petitioner's] statements indicate that the role of the petitioner, U.S. Agent, is to 
represent the beneficiary and to arrange short-term employment on their behalf with 
numerous employers who wish to employ the beneficiary to render services as their 
employee. As such, the petitioner is the representative of both the employee and 
employer in contract negotiations for the beneficiary's services (employee) negotiating 
on the beneficiary's behalf to secure employment on agreed terms between both the 
employee and the employer. Therefore, [the Petitioner is] subject to requirements 
under 8 C.F .R. 214.2( o )(2)(iv)(E)(2) which states that a contract between the employers 
and the beneficiary is required. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that "[a] U.S. agent may petition for self-employed workers or for 
those who have many employers," and the agent agreement does not indicate the Petitioner would 
represent both the Beneficiary and the Beneficiary's employers. At the outset, we agree with the 
Petitioner that the agent agreement does not show or demonstrate that the Petitioner will represent 
both the Beneficiary and the Beneficiary's employers. However, the record does not establish that the 
Petitioner qualifies as a U.S. agent, as defined in the regulations. A U.S. agent may file a petition in 
cases involving workers who are traditionally self-employed or workers who use agents to arrange 
short-term employment on their behalf with numerous employers, and in cases where a foreign 
employer authorizes the agent to act in its behalf 8 C.F.R. 214.2( o )(2)(iv)(E). 1 A U.S. agent may be: 
1) the actual employer of the beneficiary, 2) the representative of both the employer and the 
beneficiary, or 3) a person or entity authorized by the employer to act for, or in place of: the employer 
as its agent. Id. 
Here, the Petitioner did not establish the actual employment of the Beneficiary. The regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(iv)(E)(l) requires "[a]n agent performing the function of an employer must 
provide the contractual agreement between the agent and the beneficiary which specifies the wages 
offered and the other terms and conditions of employment." Besides the agent agreement indicating 
the Beneficiary will pay the Petitioner "a one-time flat fee of [$1,000]," the agreement does not specify 
the wages offered to the Beneficiary by the Petitioner. 2 There is no indication the Petitioner will 
compensate the Beneficiary for his services at the events or activities listed on the itinerary, let alone 
evidence from any of the organizations of their intent or desire to render the Beneficiary's services. 
In fact, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how the agreement shows the Petitioner performing the 
function of an employer under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o)(2)(iv)(E)(l). 
Moreover, by the Petitioner's own admission, the Petitioner does not serve as an agent for both the 
Beneficiary and the Beneficiary's employers under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(iv)(E)(2). In addition, the 
record does not contain any regulatory required contracts between the Beneficiary and the employers. 
Further, the Petitioner did not show that he is in business as an agent and is authorized to act as an 
agent for the other employers for purposes of filing the petition. 3 
1 See also 2 Policy Manual M.3(C), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
2 The Petitioner indicated in Part 5 of Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, the Beneficiary will earn $75,000 
per year. However, the record does not explain who, if any, will compensate the Beneficiary for these wages. 
3 See 2 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at M.3(C). 
users 
3 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish the regulatory requirements as an 
agent under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(iv)(E). 4 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not demonstrate the conditions as an agent. Consequently, the Petitioner did not 
establish eligibility to act as an agent in order to seek the Beneficiary's 0-1 visa classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 5 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. 
4 Although not applicable in this case, we note the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(2)(iv)(E)(3) relates to foreign 
employers who authorize U.S. agents to act on their behalf. 
5 We decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's other appellate arguments regarding the sufficiency of the 
evidentiary criteria applicable to individuals of extraordinary ability. 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 ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal 
where applicants do not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
4