dismissed O-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 24810333 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 24, 2023 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner seeks to classify the Beneficiary, a basketball player, as an 0-1 nonimmigrant, a visa 
classification 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)(15)(O)(i), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(O)(i) . 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition on the following three grounds: 1) 
the Petitioner did not provide a sufficient contract, 2) the Petitioner did not demonstrate the 
Beneficiary's events or activities, and 3) the Petitioner did not show that the Beneficiary received a 
major, internationally recognized award, or at least three of eight possible forms of documentation. 
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 Christa 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
As relevant here, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(2)(ii)(B) requires any written contracts between 
the petitioner and the beneficiary or, ifthere are not any, a summary of the terms of the oral agreement. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(C) requires an explanation of the nature of the 
events or activities, the beginning and ending dates for the events or activities, and a copy of any 
itinerary for the events or activities. 
As it relates to a beneficiary , section 10l(a)(15)(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). 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief addressing only one of the three grounds for the Director's 
denial. Specifically, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary meets at least three of the categories 
of evidence. However, the Petitioner does not dispute or contest the Director's decision regarding the 
contractual requirement and the nature of the Beneficiary's events or activities. 1 
Accordingly, we will not address these two uncontested grounds on appeal, and we deem them to be 
waived. If the affected party does not address issues raised by the director, and those issues are 
dispositive of the case, the appeal will be dismissed based on those waived issues. See, e.g., Matter 
of M-A-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009). Moreover, since the identified bases for denial are 
dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate 
arguments regarding the Beneficiary's satisfaction of at least three categories of evidence. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues 
the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N 
Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is 
otherwise ineligible). 
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that he satisfied the statutory and regulatory requirements to 
establish the Beneficiary's eligibility for the 0-1 visa classification as an individual of extraordinary. 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. 
1 Although the Petitioner provides additional documentation on appeal, he did not explain if, or how, the evidence relates 
or addresses the Director's findings regarding the contractual and event requirements. Regardless, we will not consider 
new eligibility claims or evidence for the first time on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 T&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) 
(providing that if "the petitioner was put on notice of the required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide 
it for the record before the denial, we will not consider evidence submitted on appeal of any purpose" and that "we will 
adjudicate the appeal based on the record of proceedings" before the Chief); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 l&N Dec. 
533 (BIA 1988). Here, the Director afforded the Petitioner an opportunity to present additional evidence through the 
issuance of a request for evidence. 
2