dismissed O-1A Case: Badminton

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 17442189 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN. 08, 2021 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, a badminton club and badminton sports team, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a badminton coach. To do so, the Petitioner seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an 0-1 
nonimmigrant of extraordinary ability in athletics. This classification is available to foreign nationals 
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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not satisfy, as required, the evidentiary criteria applicable to individuals of extraordinary ability, either 
a major, internationally recognized award or at least three of eight possible forms of documentation. 
8 C.F.R . § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)-(B). Specifically, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not 
claim the Beneficiary met the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A), and it did not 
establish that the Beneficiary satisfied the requirements of any of the alternative regulatory criteria 
described at 8 C.F.R § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). 1 
The matter is now before us on appeal. On the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, counsel 
indicated that he would submit a brief and/or additional evidence to this office within 30 days. The appeal 
was filed on January 25, 2021. As of this date, no additional evidence has been incorporated into the 
record of proceeding, and the record will be considered complete. 
In the letter accompanying the Form I-290B, counsel states the legal basis for the instant appeal as 
follows : 
1. [The Beneficiary] has demonstrated extraordinary ability as a badminton coach in the 
national and international badminton arenas. 
1 The Petitioner claimed the Beneficiary met the criteria for: receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field under 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l) ; membership in associations under 8 C.F.R . 
§ 214 .2( o )(3)(iii)(B)(2) ; and , employment in a critical or essential capacity for distinguished organizations and establishments 
under 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7) . 
2. The Service erroneous[ly] concluded that [the Beneficiary] is not an extraordinary 
badminton coach. The evidence submitted, as well as evidence to be submitted in the 
supplemental appellate brief: will show [the Beneficiary's] qualifications & experience to 
be of extraordinary abilities. 
3. Evidence - relevant probative evidence of eligibility has not been considered by the 
Service. 
Supplemental appeal brief will be filed within thirty days .... Based on the previous 
submitted [F]orm I-129 documents and the evidence to be submitted in the Supplemental 
Appeal Brief: [the Petitioner] respectfully requests that [the Form I-129] requesting 0-1 
classification for [the Beneficiary] be approved. 
The Petitioner does not acknowledge or address the grounds for denial of the petition or contend that 
the petition was denied based on any specified error on the part of the Director. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part that "[a]n officer to whom an appeal 
is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party concerned fails to identify specifically any 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal." 
Here, the Petitioner has not contested any aspect of the Director's decision and has not identified an 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact on the part of the Director as a basis for the appeal. 
Therefore, the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
We note that the Director's decision adequately addressed the evidence submitted with respect to each 
of the claimed evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B) and explained why such evidence 
was insufficient to meet the Petitioner's burden. The Petitioner was therefore given a sufficient 
explanation of the grounds for denial as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i), and a fair opportunity 
to contest the decision. We agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not establish 
eligibility for the benefit sought. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. As the petitioner has not identified an erroneous conclusion 
of law or statement of fact in support of the appeal, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed. 
2