dismissed O-1A Case: Modeling

DATE: 
OCT 2 2 2012 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 205~9-2090 
U.S. citizenShip 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section I Ol(a)(lS)(O)(i) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § IIOI(a)(lS)(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 AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
infonnation that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Fonn I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.S. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § I 03.S(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to 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 and it is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will summarily dismiss the 
appeal. 
The petitioner filed this petition seeking to classity the beneficiary as an 0-1 nonimmigrant pursuant to 
section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the A(;t), 8 U.S.C. I 101 (a)(l5)(0)(i), 
as an alien d e)ftr;.w;~~;';';M)' at@'j. 5:fmfna,~Ij', j~1E pI1m= req)Jt"s'rea ina! fne 'oeneflciary 'be 
classified as an alien of extrilordinary ability in the field of business, pursuant to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(0)(3)(iii). The petitioner, a model talent agency, requests that the beneficiary be granted 0-1 
classification for a period of three years so that she may work as a model in the United States. 
The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary criteria for 
classification of the benefiQiary as an alien of extraordinary ability in business, set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(0 )(3)(iii). Specifi'oally, director found that the petitioner failed to satisty the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(A), and submitted evidence which only satisfied two of the eight criteria, 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(I3)(3) and (B)(8). In addition, the director determined that the regulatory 
language precludes the con§ideration of comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(C) in 
this case, as there is no indication that eligibility for 0-1 clas~ification in the beneficiary's 
occupation as a model Call1tot be established by submitting documentation relevant to at least three 
of the eight criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B). In fact, as indicated in the decision, the 
petitioner submitted evidellce relating to five of the eight criteria at S C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B). 
Regard-l-ess~ the mnxtm- 2{«(Z'id ire U::l/}l'ZWl]~1.i..' eF~0eJ.f}Ce t:1}C peiJt:1{AlJt' • .r SLi.ttJ)J~lni'iJ lJJJDt"J '8 C.Y~. 
§ 214.2(0 )(3)(iii)(C) did 110t demonstrate that the beneficiary has earned sustained national or 
international acclaim and r()cognition for achievements in the field. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to tJ·t::at the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. The issue on appeal is whether the petitioner established 
that the beneficiary qualifi(!~; for 0-1 classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in business. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion: 
The director abusE:d her discretion as she incorrectly defirled "national" or 
"international" acchrim. 
Counsel does not identity specifically how the director's decision ilKorrectly defined "national" or 
"international" acclaim. 
Next, counsel asserts that the director was in error in finding that t\le petitioner failed to submit 
documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internation&l1y recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in the field of endeavor pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 2l4.2(0)Cl)(iii)(B)(l). The director found 
that although the evidence e~tablished that the beneficiary won at le~t one beauty competition, Miss 
Freshwater Beach, the petitioner failed to submit evidence to establish that the beneficiary was the 
recipient of any awards Ot prizes that are nationally or internationally recognized in modeling. In 
response to the director's finding, counsel asserts on appeal: 
Page 3 
... the Service only considered from 2009 to 2012 ... Since the beneficiary won 
several beauty pageants some nationally ... and some internationally ... prior to 
2009, even if they were minor awards, nonetheless in the aggregate helped launch 
the beneficiary's modeling career at a very young age. 
Counsel's statement that the director only considered the period from 2009 to 2012 is incorrect, since 
the decision refers to the evidence that the beneficiary was a finalist for 
Counsel's statement on appeal does not address the director's finding that not 
submitted evidence to establish that any award or prize won by the beneficiary is a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award in modeling. 
Further, counsel asserts that the director was in error in finding that the petitioner failed to submit 
evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for organizations and 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7). The 
director found that the petitioner has not submitted evidence that the beneficiary has served in a 
critical or essential role for any of the publications in which she has appeared, or that she has been 
employed by such publications. Also the director found, with regard to the beneficiary's previous 
employers, that the petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary has 
served in a critical or essential role for these organizations or establishments, and that these 
organizations or establishments have distinguished reputations. In response to the director's finding, 
counsel asserts on appeal: 
The Service erred and abused her discretion when she failed to recognize that the 
beneficiary is not employed by several magazines but ... the owner of products 
being advertised in the magazine are the ones who employed the models such as 
the case here. The service failed to discern this subtle difference which makes 
models unique and does not squarely fit to the category. 
On appeal, counsel's statement does not address the director's finding that the petitioner has not 
submitted evidence that the beneficiary has served in a critical or essential role for her previous 
employers and that these organizations or establishments have distinguished reputations. Nor has 
the petitioner submitted evidence in support of counsel's statement on appeal that the beneficiary 
was employed by "the owners of products being advertised in the magazine." Without documentary 
evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of 
proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 
I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1,3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter 
of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
Counsel for the petitioner stated on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal to the AAO, that additional 
documentation evidencing the beneficiary'S qualifications would be provided within 30 days. 
Counsel has not filed a brief or evidence in support of the appeal. 
Page 4 
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 Congo 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. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(ii). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(ii) defmes, in pertinent part: 
Extraordinary ability in the field 0/ 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. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary is qualified for 0-1 classification 
without addressing how the submitted evidence demonstrates the beneficiary's eligibility under the 
relevant regulatory evidentiary criteria. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1 )(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. 
A review of the decision reveals the director accurately set forth a legitimate basis for denial of the 
petition. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner does not identify specifically an erroneous statement 
of fact or conclusion oflaw on the part of the director. Counsel's general objections to the denial of 
the petition, without specifically identifying any errors on the part of the director, do not address the 
grounds stated for denial of the petition, nor has the petitioner presented additional evidence relevant to 
the grounds for denial. As stated above, without documentary evidence to support the claim, the 
assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of 
counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter o/Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); 
Matter o/Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1,3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter o/Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 
503, 506 (BrA 1980). Accordingly, the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
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 oflaw or a statement of fact in support of the appeal, the 
petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.