dismissed O-1A Case: Fashion Model

-. 
identifying data deleted to 
p-t clearly unwarranted 
invasion of wna1 privac) 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Of$ce ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
FILE: WAC 09 023 5 1293 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: AUG 0 3 2010 
IN RE: 
PETITION: Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)( 15)(0) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 101(a)(15)(0) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $585. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
u 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 09 023 5 1293 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonirnmigrant visa petition. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will summarily dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed the nonimmigrant visa petition seelung classification of the beneficiary under section 
10 1 (a)(l5)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1 10 1 (a)(15)(0)(i), as an alien with 
extraordinary ability in the sciences, athletics, education or business. The petitioner states that it is a talent 
management agency. The beneficiary was previously granted 0-1 status as an alien with extraordinary ability in 
the arts and the petitioner now seeks to extend his status for two additional years. The petitioner indicates that the 
beneficiary will work as a fashion model. 
The director denied the petition on August 4, 2009, concluding that the petitioner failed to provide evidence to 
establish: (1) that it is doing business as an agent or employer in the United States; (2) that the beneficiary has 
worked for the petitioner in the two years since his origmal0-1 petition was approved; or (3) that the beneficiary 
has worked as a fashon model in the two years since his orignal 0-1 petition was approved. In denying the 
petition, the director noted that the petitioner failed to submit a complete response to a request for additional 
evidence ("RFE") issued on March 27,2009. 
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 indicated on the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, that a brief andlor additional evidence will be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. The petitioner filed 
the appeal on September 8,2009. As of this date, nearly 11 months have passed and the AAO has not received 
the brief or additional evidence as indicated on the Form I-290B. Accordingly, the record will be considered 
complete. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.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, the petitioner does not identify an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact on the part of the 
director as a basis for the appeal. As noted above, the petitioner stated that it would submit a brief at a later date 
and has failed to do so. Accordingly, the AAO will summarily dismiss the appeal. 
The denial of ths petition is without prejudice to the filing of a new petition by the petitioner accompanied by the 
appropriate supporting evidence and fee. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligbility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 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.