remanded O-1A Case: Rugby

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave. N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 04 142 53572 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: . Yo\/ ! :< 7rjL 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(0)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
u > Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 142 53572 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The California Service Center Director denied, the nonimmigrant visa petition, and the matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Ofice (AAO) on appeal. The director's decision shall be withdrawn and 
the matter remanded for further action and consideration and for entry of a new decision. 
The petitioner, Northern California Rugby Union, is a sports association. The beneficiary is a rugby competitor 
and coach. The petitioner seeks 0-1 classification of the beneficiary, as an alien with extraordinary ability in 
athletics under section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 
1101(a)(15)(0)(i), in order to employ him in the United States as a player and assistant coach for a period of 
sixteen months at an annual salary of$20,000. 
The director denied the petition, in part, finding that the petitioner had failed to establish thar the beneficiary is a 
person at the very top of his field. The director denied the petition, in part, finding that the petitioner failed to 
provide evidence required to accompany an 0-1 petition, i.e., copies of contracts, an explanation of the nature of 
the events or activities, and a written advisory opinion. See 8 C.F.R. .§ 214.2(0)(2)(ii)(B), (C), and (D). 
On appeal, the petitioner states that it did not receive ,the notice of intent to deny so it was unable to respond to it. 
The petitioner failed to submit any additional evidence op appeal. 
Section 10 1 (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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 103.2(b)(8) provides, in pertinent part: 
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, in other instances where there is no evidence of 
ineligibility, and initial evidence or eligibility information is missing or the Service [now known as 
the Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS)] finds that the evidence submitted either does not 
fully establish eligibility for the requested benefit or raises underlying questions regarding 
eligibility, [CIS] shall request the missing initial evidence . . . . In such cases, the applicant or 
petitioner shall be given 12 weeks to respond to a request for evidence. 
In the instant case, there is no evidence of ineligibility and initial evidence is missing; therefore, the director 
should have issued a request for evidence rather than a notice of intent to deny. The director's decision shall be 
withdrawn and the matter,will be remanded to the,director to request additional evidence related to 8 C.F.R. $8 
2 1 4.2(0)(2)(ii) and 2 1 4.2(0)(3)(iii). 
As always, the burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 5 1361. 
WAC 04 142 53572 
Page 3 
ORDER: The director's decision is withdrawn and the matter is remanded to the director to take action 
consistent and for the entry of a new decision, which, if adverse to the petitioner, shall be certified to 
the AAO for review.