dismissed O-1A Case: Soccer

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citi zenship and Immi gratio n Services 
Ad min istrat ive Appea ls Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N. W ., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-20 90 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Date: 
1 
APR 0 · 1 2014 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Peti tioner: 
Beneficiary : --~~ - - ~---- --------~-__j 
PETITION: Petiti on for a Nonimmigr ant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(lS)(O)(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 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 reope n, respectively. Any motion must be fi led on a Notice of Appeal or Motio n (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decisi on. 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 Rose nberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The California Service Center Director denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa and the 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner, identified on Form l-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, as Community Soccer 
Outreach, seeks to classify the beneficiary, as an 0-1 nonimmigrant pursuant to section 
101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in athletics. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as a soccer coach, advisor, 
and player for a period of three years. 
The director denied the petition on the sole ground that the petition was not properly filed because it was 
signed by the beneficiary. In the denial, the director noted that the petitioner was previously afforded an 
opportunity to cure the defective filing and submit a properly signed Form I-129, but the petitioner did not 
include a properly signed Form I-129 as instructed. 
On appeal, counsel submits a new Form 1-129, dated November 1, 2013, signed b __, on 
behalf of the petitioner. Counsel also submits, for the first time, a Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance 
as Attorney or Accredited Representative, signed by on behalf of the petitioner, authorizing 
counsel to represent the petitioner. Counsel submits a brief which states, in pertinent part: 
As you are well aware, this office represents in the above mentioned 
petition. In response to your letter dated on October 7, 2013, please know that the outcome 
for this case comes from an inadvertent mistake made by one of my paralegals. During the 
course of our representation, my paralegal had the wrong person execute the form 1-129. By 
reviewing the file, I caught the mistake and had the form re executed by the correct person, 
the Manager of Community Soccer Outreach. It was my intention to replace the incorrect 
form with the correct form before sending out the case. I was very surprising when I received 
your letter stating your arguments for denial of this case which was based on the fact that the 
petitioner had not sign[ed the] form I-129. Just for clarification the supplement page that was 
originally submitted was executed by the Manager of Community Soccer Outreach. 
We respectfully request that 
214.1(4) ... 
application be approved pursuant to CFR 
Notwithstanding the foregoing, I am enclosing now the correct form that was to be replaced 
in the initial package. I understand your reasoning for denial; however, I respectfully request 
that you reconsider this case, by reviewing the correct form and allowing my client to re­
submit his application [sic]. 
The record reflects that the beneficiary signed the original Form I-129, which was filed on February 11, 2013. 
The beneficiary's name and signature, dated December 12, 2012, appears in Part 7 of the original Form 1-129, 
thereby certifying "under penalty of perjury that this petition and the evidence submitted with iL are true and 
correct to the best of [his or her] knowledge ." The beneficiary 's attorney signed Part 8 of the Form I-129, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
thereby certifying that he "prepared this petition at the request of the above person." The original Form 1-129 
was accompanied by one Form G-28, signed by the beneficiary, authorizing counsel to represent the 
beneficiary for purposes of the Form I-129. However, the regulations do not permit any individual who is not 
the petitioner to sign the Form I-129 petition. 
The regulation at 8 C .F.R. § 103.2(a)(2) provides: 
Signature. An applicant or petitioner must sign his or her benefit request. However, a parent 
or legal guardian may sign for a person who is less than 14 years old. A legal guardian may 
sign for a mentally incompetent person. By signing the benefit request, the applicant or 
petitioner, or parent or guardian certifies under penalty of perjury that the benefit request, 
and all evid ence submitt ed with it, either at the time of filing or thereafter, is true and 
correct . Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, an acceptable signature on a benefit 
request that is being filed with the USCIS is one that is either handwritten or, for benefit 
requests filed electronically as permitted by the instructions to the form, in electronic format. 
(Emphasis added.) 
The AAO acknowledges that the petitioner properly signed the 0 and P Classifications Supplement to Form I-
129 , which was submitted at the time of filing. However, a properly signed supplement form cannot negate 
the signature requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2), which is required on the actual benefit request, Form I-
129. The petitioner's signature on the supplement form certifies only that the petitioner " will be jointly and 
severally liable for the reasonable costs of return transportation of the beneficiary abroad if the beneficiary is 
dismissed from employment by the employer before the end ofthe period of authorized stay." 
The AAO cannot overlook the fact that the director previously afforded the petitioner two opportunities to 
cure the defective filing by submitting a properly signed Form I-129. 1 The director issued the petitioner a 
notice in January 2013 instructing the petitioner to resubmit a completed petition with original signature on 
the 1-129. In response to this request , counsel stated, "please be advised that (the 
beneficiary's] signature is on page 6 of the form 1-129, " and submitted no other documentation. The director 
then issued a request for evidence (RFE) on March 27, 2013, specifically advising the petitioner of the 
following: "Signature: The petitioner must sign the copy of the attached copy of Form I-129, Part 7. The 
beneficiary, signed this section of the submitted Form I-129. The I-129 contained in the 
record has not been properly signed by a U.S. employer or U.S. agent. " In response to the RFE, the petitioner 
did not include a properly signed Form 1-129. Instead , the response to the RFE consisted of, inter alia, a 
letter from the beneficiary ' s attorney in which he repeatedly refers to the beneficiary as the "applicant " for an 
0-1 visa , and a copy of the previously submitted Form G-28 signed by the beneficiary. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a new Form 1-129, dated November 1, 2013, which was signed by the 
petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner asserts that this newly submitted Form 1-129 bearing the petitioner's 
signature was already executed prior to sending the case out for filing , stating: "It was my intention to replace 
the incorrect form with the correct form before sending out the case." 
1 
Admittedly, the first notice was not sufficiently specific. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
The AAO will not accept the newly submitted Form I-129 , which was offered for the first time on appeal. As 
discussed above , the petitioner was put on notice of this particular deficiency and was given opportunities to 
respond to that deficiency, but it failed to do so. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see 
also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). The failure to submit requested evidence that 
precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.P.R.§ 103.2(b)(14). 
Furthermore, the petitioner's explanation on appeal is not consistent with the submitted evidence . 
Specifically, the petitioner now claims that the new "correct" Form I-129 was executed before the case was 
filed. However , the newly submitted Form I-129 is dated November 1, 2013, whereas the original Form I-
129 was filed on February 11, 2013. It is evident that the newly submitted Form I-129 was not prepared prior 
to the date of filing, as now claimed. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the 
record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not 
suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of 
Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582 , 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Finally, the lack of the petitioner's signature on Form J-129 is significant in other aspects. With respect to the 
0-1 classification, the regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(2)(i) specifically prohibits an 0 alien from petitioning 
for himself or herself. In addition, 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(a)(3) specifically prohibits a beneficiary of a visa 
petition, or a representative acting on a beneficiary's behalf, from filing a petition. More generally, the 
signature requirement reflects a genuine concern regarding the validity of the temporary job offer contained in 
the Form I-129 petition . To this end, the employer's signature serves as certification under penalty of perjury 
that the petition for the temporary worker, and all evidence submitted with it, either at the time of filing or 
thereafter, is true and correct? 
In conclusion, the petitioner has failed to overcome the director's basis for denying the petitiOn. The 
petitioner is not precluded from filing a new visa petition on the beneficiary's behalf that is supported by 
competent evidence that the beneficiary is entitled to the status sought under the immigration laws. 
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. 
2 The petitioner signature line on Part 7 of the Form I-129 provides that the petitioner is certifying "under 
penalty of perjury under the law s of the United States of America, that this petition and the evidence 
submitted with it are all true and correct." To be valid, 28 U.S.C. § 1746 requires that declarations be 
"subscribed" by the declarant "as true under penalty of perjury." In pertinent part, 18 U.S.C. § 1621, which 
governs liability for perjury under federal law , mandates that: "Whoever in any declaration under penalty of 
perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any 
material matter which he does not believe to be true is guilty of perjury." The probative force of a declaration 
subscribed under penalty of perjury derives from the signature of the declarant. Without the petitioner's 
actual signature as declarant, the declaration is completely robbed of any evidentiary force. See In re Rivera , 
342 B.R. 435, 459 (D. N.J. 2006); Blumberg v. Cates, No. CV 00-05607, 2003 WL 22002739 (C.D.Cal.) (not 
selected for publication). 
(b)(6)