dismissed O-1A Case: Business

(b)(6)
Date: AUG 0 6 2013 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
INRE : Petitioner: 
Beneficiary : 
U.S. Dep artment of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washingto
n. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION : Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER : 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision . The AAO does not announce new construction s of law nor establi sh agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectivel y. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
with in 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO . 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa 
and the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will 
be dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this petition seeking to classify 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, a self-described art dealer, seeks to employ the 
beneficiary in the position of Advertising Director for a period of three years. 
The director denied the petition on January 17, 2013, concluding that the petitioner failed to meet the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A), and three of the eight criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B), and therefore did not demonstrate that the beneficiary is one of the small 
percentage of people who has risen to the very top of his field of endeavor.' 
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, counsel for the petitioner asserts: "My brief 
and/or additional evidence will be submitted to the AAO within thirty (30) days." Counsel filed the 
appeal on February 19, 2013, and has not yet submitted a brief or additional evidence in support of the 
appeal. Accordingly, the record will be considered complete. 
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 
his field of endeavor. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) states, 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. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii). 
Specifically, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary meets the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A) or three of the eight criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). If the 
1 We further note for the record that while the petitioner sought to classify the beneficiary as an alien of extraordinary 
ability in the field of business, the petitioner simultaneously claimed that the beneficiary meets the evidentiary criteria for 
aliens of extraordinary ability in the arts, as set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iv), although it never specifically cited to this 
section of the regulations. For example, the petitioner's counsel indicated that it was submitting evidence that the beneficiary 
has or will "perform the lead in an event which has a distinguished reputation," has "achieved national or international 
recognition for achievements, " and has "received significant recognition for achievements from organizations, critics, 
government agencies, or other recognized experts in the field in which the alien is engaged." See 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(l) , (2) and (5). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
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.P.R. § 214.2(o)(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 conducted a thorough review of the record of proceeding and clearly explained why the 
petitioner's evidence failed to satisfy the evidentiary criteria set forth at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A) or (B). 
The regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) state, in pertinent part: 
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, petitioner's counsel does not identify an erroneous statement of fact or conclusion of law 
on the part of the director. Petitioner's counsel does not specifically object to the denial of the 
petition on the grounds stated or otherwise state the basis for the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be summarily dismissed. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.