dismissed O-1A Case: Mixed Martial Arts

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Innnigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529~2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: MAR 2 3 2011 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section IOI(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § IIOI(a)(15)(O)(i) 
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. § 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 $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant 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 seeking classification of the beneficiary under section 
IOI(a)(IS)(O)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § II0I(a)(lS)(0)(i), as an alien with 
extraordinary ability in athletics. The petitioner is a sports and fitness promoter and the beneficiary is a mixed 
martial arts fighter. The petitioner, which will be acting as the beneficiary's trainer and manager, requests the 
beneficiary's services for a period of two years and ten months. 
The director denied the petition on July 28, 2010, on three independent and alternative grounds. The director 
determined: (I) that the evidence submitted did not meet the applicable evidentiary criteria for aliens of 
extraordinary ability in athletics pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( 0)(3)(iii)(A) or (B); (2) that the petitioner failed to 
provide an itinerary or other evidence that the beneficiary is coming to the United States for a specific event or 
events; and (3) that the petitioner failed to submit an appropriate consultation with a peer group in the area of the 
beneficiary'S ability as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0 )(5)(i). 
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 the Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, counsel for the petitioner 
asserts: "The Service made an error in denying the visa petition for the beneficiary, which shall be detailed in the 
brief." Counsel indicated that a brief and/or additional evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. 
The AAO received additional evidence, but no brief, from the petitioner on October 19,20 I O. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(I)(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. 
Upon review, the AAO will affirm the director's decision and summarily dismiss the appeal. Counsel's general 
objection to the denial of the petition fails to identifY any specific erroneous conclusion of law or statement of 
fact as a basis for the appeal, and is therefore insufficient to overcome the director's determination. Counsel's 
limited statement on appeal fails to address, much less overcome, the well-founded conclusions reached by 
the director based on the evidence in the record. The unsupported statements of counsel on appeal or in a 
motion are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight. See INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 
183, 188-89 n.6 (1984); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. S03 (BIA 1980). 
The AAO acknowledges the evidence submitted on appeal, which includes: (I) the beneficiary'S "National MMA 
10" issued by the Association of Boxing Commissions in September 2010; (2) a screenshot from the Mixed 
Martial Arts that the beneficiary has been a member since 
September 27,2010; (3) a letter dated September 7, 2010 from ____ " head coach of Camp Undefeated, 
who indicates that the beneficiary has a fight scheduled in Atlantic City on September II, 20 10; and (4) a flyer 
advertising the beneficiary's Atlantic City fight. 
Page 3 
As noted above, the director denied the petition on July 28, 2010. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the 
time of filing the nonimmigrant visa petition. A visa petition may not be approved at a future date after the 
petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N 
Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm. 1978). As such, the AAO will not consider the new evidence submitted on appeal. 
Moreover, although the new evidence shows that the beneficiary became an MMA member and had a fight 
scheduled as of September 2010, the evidence submitted appears to relate to only one of the three grounds for 
denial of the petition, specifically, the lack of evidence that the beneficiary is coming to the United States for 
a specific event or events. The petitioner's evidence does not address the other grounds for denial of the 
petition, specifically: (I) the petitioner's failure to submit evidence to establish the beneficiary's sustained 
national or international acclaim and recognition for achievements in his field pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
214.2(0 )(3)(iii)(A) or (B); and (2) the petitioner's failure to submit an appropriate written consultation from a 
peer group or labor organization. 
As the petitioner does not present additional evidence on appeal to overcome the decision of the director, or 
otherwise state a basis for the appeal, the appeal will be summarily dismissed in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(I)(v). 
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. § 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.