dismissed O-1A Case: Search Engine Optimization

(b)(6)
DATE: NAR 1 9 2014 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner : 
Beneficiary: 
Jl:~LR~fil£r,tmilli~ ~~!!~!i!~!!i!i!t~~c!!.f!~ 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Jil).Jl1.igr.a.tion 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 10l(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(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 constructions of law nor establish 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 , respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 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. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The Vermont Service Center Director denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa and the 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to classify the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary 
ability in the field of business and science, pursuant to section lOl(a)(lSXOXi) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(0). The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as its Chief 
Executive Officer for a period of three years. 
The director denied the petition, fmding that the petitioner had failed to establish that the beneficiary qualifies as 
an alien of extraordinary ability 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 stated the following on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion: 
The district director erred in determining that the Beneficiary did not meet the criteria of an 
extraordinary ability alien in the field of business and science. Evidence made part of the 
record, would show that the Beneficiary is highly acclaimed in the field of search engine 
optimization and meets the evidentiary standard for 0-IA classification. 
No additional documents accompanied the Form I-290B. Counsel indicated on Form I-1290B that it would 
submit a brief and/or additional evidence to the AAO within 30 days. 
As of this date, no brief or additional evidence has been submitted. The record will be considered complete. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, 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." This regulation is supplemented by the instructions on 
the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, by operation of the rule at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l) that all 
submissions must comply with the instructions that appear on any form prescribed for those submissions.
1 
With regard to appeals, Part 3 of the Form I-290B states: "Appeal: Provide a statement explaining any 
erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the decision being appealed." 
Upon review, the AAO agrees with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. Moreover, 
the AAO will summarily dismiss the appeal. The petitioner has not explained any erroneous conclusion of 
law or statement of fact on the part of the director as a basis for the appeal. The petitioner asserts in a general 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l) states in pertinent part: 
[E]very application, petition, appeal, motion, request, or other document submitted on the 
. form prescribed by this chapter shall be executed and filed in accordance with the instructions 
on the form, such instructions ... being hereby incorporated into the particular section of the 
regulations requiring its submission. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
manner that the director erroneously denied the 0-1 petition and that the submitted evidence demonstrated 
eligibility for the 0-1A classification, but the petitioner did not provide any type of explanation for the basis 
of this assertion. The petitioner indicated that it would provide a brief to the AAO within 30 days, but to this 
date no additional documentation has been submitted. 
Inasmuch 
as the petitioner has not specifically explained any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact 
as a basis for the appeal, the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
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 of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.