dismissed O-1A Case: Biology Education

.
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF H-P-
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 7, 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a public school system, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as a foreign national of 
extraordinary ability as a high school biology teacher. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(15)(0)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i). This 0-1 classification makes nonimmigrant 
visas 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. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant 
Worker, concluding that the record 
did not establish, as required, that that the Beneficiary enjoys the 
necessary acclaim as a teacher. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in not taking into account her 
accomplishments in scientific research when evaluating her extraordinary ability as a biology 
teacher.' In May 2017, we issued a request for evidence (RFE), noting that the record lacked a 
consultation even though there was evidence that an appropriate labor organization exists. We 
afforded the Petitioner 87 days to respond. As of today, more than three months later, we have 
received no response. · 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 101 (a)( 15)(0)(i) of the Act provides classification to a qualified beneficiary who has 
extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which 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. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) 
provides, in pertinent part: "Extraordinary ability in the field of science, education. business. or 
1 
Upon a review of the record, including evidence presented on appeal, we find that the Petitioner has overcome the 
Director's ground of deniaL 
.
Matter of H-P-
athletics means 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." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(D) provides that every petition must be accompanied by 
a written advisory opinion from the appropriate consulting entity. According to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(5)(i)(A) and (B) the mandatory consultation should be from an appropriate U.S. peer 
group, which could include a person or persons with expertise in the tield, or a labor or management 
organization with expertise in the specific field involved. The opinion should describe the 
beneficiary's ability and achievements in the field of endeavor, describe the nature ofthe duties to be 
performed, and state whether the position requires the services of an individual of extraordinary 
ability. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(5)(ii)(A). A consulting organization may also submit a letter of no 
objection instead. !d. In those cases where the petitioner establishes that an appropriate peer group, 
including a labor organization, does not exist, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services shall 
render a decision on the evidence of record. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(5)(i)(G) . 
II. ANALYSIS 
On the 0 and P Classification Supplement to the petition, where instructed to provide the "Name of 
Recognized Peer/Peer Group or Labor Organization," the Petitioner requested that we review the 
attached reference letters. The reference letters, however, are either not from experts in biology 
education or do not detail the nature of the work the Beneficiary will perform as a biology teacher. 
Rather, they are from afterschool or environmental policy organizations, a professor who oversaw 
some the Beneficiary's doctoral work, and the petitioning organization ' s principal. Moreover , they 
focus more on her past contributions to research projects and afterschool curriculum than her 
proposed duties as a biology teacher. 
In addition, on part 9 of the petition, the Petitioner indicated that no appropriate labor organization 
exists. The record, however, contains an agreement between the and the 
and a teacher contract negotiated with that association. As the 
record suggested that an appropriate labor organization does exist for high school biology teachers, 
we issued an RFE requesting a consultation letter from that association or evidence that otherwise 
meets the regulatory requirements cited above. The Petitioner has not responded. Accordingly, it 
has not supported the petition with the mandatory consultation. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not provided the necessary written advisory opmton from an appropriate 
consulting entity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of H-P- , ID# 321045 (AAO Sept. 7, 2017) 
2