dismissed O-1A Case: Business

identifying data deleted to 
prevent c!zarl; 511wrnanted 
invasion of persnnal priv~ 
mLlC COPY 
US. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
OfJice of Administrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: WAC 09 11 8 5 1014 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
 NOV 3 0 2009 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 10 1 (a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 101(a)(15)(0)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Fonn I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
&f,?,","inistrative Appeals Ofice 
WAC 09 118 51014 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will summarily dismiss 
the appeal. 
The petitioner operates a medical insurance billing business. It filed the instant petition seeking to classifL the 
beneficiary as an 0-1 nonimmigrant pursuant to section 10l(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), as an alien of extraordinary ability in business. The petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the 
beneficiary as medical insurance administrator for a period of three years. 
The director denied the petition on May 5, 2009, concluding that the minimal evidence submitted does not 
support a claim of extraordinary ability, nor does it demonstrate that the beneficiary has achieved sustained 
national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. Further, the director denied the petition based on the petitioner's failure to submit a consultation from 
an appropriate peer group or labor organization as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(5). The director noted that, 
despite the issuance of a detailed request for additional evidence on April 8, 2009, which referred specifically to 
the evidentiary requirements and criteria for the 0-1 visa classification, the only evidence provided in support of 
the petition consisted of a contract between the petitioner and the beneficiary, and a copy of the beneficiary's 
Bachelor of Science in nursing diploma. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, the petitioner offers "two justifications" for 
reconsideration of the decision, as follows: 
First, [the beneficiary] has a most impressive portfolio that includes nursing credentials and a 
Bachelor of Science Degree in the health care industry. These are exactly the type of skill 
sets, not only the US needs desperately, but a set of skills that I need in my small business 
enterprise. My business is but 3 years in operation and I need to expand my operations but I 
am hesitant to hire from local sources and expose my business to greater risks, she would be 
invaluable. Finally, the U.S. has been and is likely to continue, in great need for qualified and 
certified nurses. 
Second, [the beneficiary] is a very close family member who has had the dream of 
immigrating to the United States for most of her life. My extended family here in the U.S. 
long for the day when our family can be reunited. There are a host of family support features 
to help ease her transition to the U.S., including financial assistance, housing, employment, 
etc. 
The petitioner re-submits a copy of the beneficiary's university diploma in support of the appeal. 
WAC 09 118 51014 
Page 3 
Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act provides classification to a qualified alien 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 extraordinary ability 
provisions of this visa classification are intended to be highly restrictive. See 137 Cong. Rec. S18247 (daily ed., 
Nov. 16, 1991). In order to establish eligibility for 0-1 classification, the petitioner must establish that the 
beneficiary is "at the very top" of her field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(ii). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214,2(0)(3)(ii) defines, in pertinent part: 
Extraordinary ability in the field of science, education, business, or 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 evidentiary criteria for aliens seeking classification as 0-1 aliens with extraordinary ability in the fields 
of science, education, business or athletics are set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii). Specifically, the 
petitioner must establish that the beneficiary meets the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(A), three of the 
eight criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B). If the criteria do not readily apply to the beneficiary's 
occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence in order to establish the beneficiary's eligibility. 8 
C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(C). The evidence submitted must demonstrate that the beneficiary has earned 
sustained national or international acclaim and recognition for achievements in the field. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. 
The director denied the petition based on the petitioner's failure to submit evidence to meet any of the above- 
referenced criteria. The petition was submitted with minimal supporting evidence which consisted of a copy 
of the beneficiary's contract with the petitioner, and a copy of her Bachelor of Science degree. Accordingly, 
the director subsequently issued a request for evidence (RFE) on April 8, 2009 instructing the petitioner to 
submit documentation to satisfy the evidentiary requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii). The 
director also instructed the petitioner to provide a consultation for an appropriate U.S. peer group or labor 
union. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner re-submitted a copy of its contract with the beneficiary, with no 
additional evidence. Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be 
grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(14). 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v) state, in pertinent part: 
WAC 09 118 51014 
Page 4 
An 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. 
On appeal, the petitioner does not identify an erroneous statement of fact or conclusion of law on the part of 
the director, or otherwise address the stated grounds for denial. Rather, the petitioner speaks generally of the 
her need for the beneficiary's skills and the shortage of qualified workers in the health care field, and notes her 
personal desire to assist the beneficiary, a family member, with the immigration process. Neither of these 
arguments relates to the statutory and regulatory requirements for the 0-1 visa classification. The petitioner's 
general objections to the denial of the petition, without specifically identifying any errors on the part of the 
director, are simply insufficient to overcome the well-founded conclusions the director reached based on the 
deficiencies in the evidence submitted by the petitioner. The record remains devoid of the required 
consultation from an appropriate peer group or labor consultation and contains no documentary evidence 
pertaining to the evidentiary criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii). The non-existence or other 
unavailability of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2)(i). 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify 
specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in support of the appeal, the petitioner has 
not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.