dismissed O-1A Case: Writing And Academia

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 21180145 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 15, 2022 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner seeks to classify the Beneficiary, a writer, academic, curator, and poet, as an 0-1 
nonimmigrant, a visa classification available to individuals who can demonstrate their extraordinary 
ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been 
recognized in the field through extensive documentation. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 101(a)(15)(O)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(O)(i). 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition on the following four grounds: 1) the 
Petitioner did not provide a sufficient contract, 2) the Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary's 
events or activities, 3) the Petitioner did not satisfy the advisory opinion requirement, and 4) the 
Petitioner did not show that the Beneficiary received a major, internationally recognized award, or at 
least three of eight possible forms of documentation . 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
As relevant here, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(2)(ii)(B) requires any written contracts between 
the petitioner and the beneficiary or, ifthere are not any, a summary of the terms of the oral agreement. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(C) requires an explanation of the nature of the 
events or activities, the beginning and ending dates for the events or activities, and a copy of any 
itinerary for the events or activities. Furthermore, section 214(c)(6)(A)(i) of the Act requires the 
petitioner to submit an advisory opinion from a peer group or a labor organization . See also 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(D) and 214.2(0)(5). If the petitioner establishes that an appropriate peer group or 
labor organization does not exist, then a petition may be adjudicated without the advisory opinion. 
See Section 214(c)(6)(C) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(5)(i)(G). 
As it relates to a beneficiary, section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Act establishes 0-1 classification for an 
individual who has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics that 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. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations 
define "extraordinary ability in the field of science, education, business, or athletics" as "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." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(ii). 
Next, DHS regulations set forth alternative evidentiary criteria for establishing a beneficiary's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of achievements. A petitioner may submit evidence either 
of "a major, internationally recognized award, such as a Nobel Prize," or of at least three of eight listed 
categories of documents. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)-(B). 
The submission of documents satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for 0-1 classification. See 59 Fed. Reg. 41818, 41820 (Aug. 15, 1994) ("The 
evidence submitted by the petitioner is not the standard for the classification, but merely the 
mechanism to establish whether the standard has been met.") Accordingly, where a petitioner 
provides qualifying evidence satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of the record and the quality of the evidence shows sustained national or international acclaim 
such that the individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 
section 101(a)(15)(o)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii), (iii). 1 
II. ANALYSIS 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits two separately filed briefs addressing only one of the four grounds 
for the Director's denial. Specifically, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary meets at least three 
of the categories of evidence. However, the Petitioner does not dispute or contest the Director's 
decision regarding the contract requirement, the nature of the Beneficiary's events or activities, and 
the advisory opinion issue. 2 
Accordingly, we will not address these three uncontested grounds on appeal, and we deem them to be 
waived. If the affected party does not address issues raised by the director, and those issues are 
dispositive of the case, the appeal will be dismissed based on those waived issues. See, e.g., Matter 
of M-A-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009). 
Moreover, since the identified bases for denial are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the Beneficiary's satisfaction 
of three categories of evidence. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies 
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they 
1 See also Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010), in which we held that, "truth is to be determined not 
by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality." 
2 Although the Petitioner provides additional documentation on appeal, we will not consider new eligibility claims or 
evidence for the first time on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 T&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) (providing that if "the 
petitioner was put on notice of the required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before 
the denial, we will not consider evidence submitted on appeal of any purpose" and that "we will adjudicate the appeal 
based on the record of proceedings" before the Chief); sec also Mattcro(Ohaighcna, 19 T&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). Here, 
the Director afforded the Petitioner an opportunity to present additional evidence through the issuance of a request for 
evidence. While the Petitioner replied requesting additional time, the record does not reflect that the Petitioner submitted 
the evidence by the time the Director issued the decision, over five months later. 
2 
reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that it satisfied the statutory and regulatory requirements to 
establish the Beneficiary's eligibility for the 0-1 visa classification as an individual of extraordinary. The 
appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3