dismissed O-1B Case: Acrobatics

PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave. N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Irnmigr ation 
FILE: WAC 02 044 5 1778 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 2 8 2005 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(15)(0)(i) 
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 f Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 02 044 5 1778 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The California Service Center Director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks 0-1 classification of the beneficiary, as an alien with extraordinary ability in the arts under 
section 10 1 (a)( 15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (a)(] 5)(0)(i), in order 
to employ her in the United States as an acrobat/contortionist for a period of one year. 
In a decision dated June 3, 2003, the director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that 
the beneficiary would be coming to the United states to perform services relating to an event or events as defined 
by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(ii). 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence. 
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. 
Finding the evidence insufficient to establish the beneficiary's eligibility for the classification sought, on March 1, 
2002, the director requested additional evidence, noting: 
Service records indicate that the beneficiary is an intended immigrant. The beneficiary's permanent 
residency status was granted on December 16, 1998. Therefore, you may withdraw the petition, 
since the beneficiary is no longer eligible to change her nonimmigrant [status] form a P-1 to an 0-1 
classification. 
In response, the petitioner submitted evidence to establish that the beneficiary was not an intending immigrant 
and had not adjusted her status. In a second request for additional evidence dated March 25, 2003, the director 
noted that the dates the petitioner requested for the beneficiary's performance had already elapsed, so he asked 
the petitioner to submit a new contract with an itinerary and new employment dates. The director also informed 
the petitioner that the Form G-28 submitted with the Form 1-129 petition was invalid because it lacked the 
attorney's signature. 
In response to the latter request for additional evidence, counsel for the petitioner submitted a signed G-28 form. 
However, the petitioner failed to submit a new contract with an itinerary and new employment dates. The failure 
to submit requested evidence that precludes -a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the 
petition. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(14). 
The director denied the petition on June 3, 2003, finding that the petitioner had failed to submit the required 
itinerary. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary's case was "unfortunately mishandled 
by BCIS, delayed for several months, was not afforded full review of the facts of this case and inadvertently 
overlooked for an alternative humanitarian status." 
As discussed, the petitioner failed to respond specifically to the director's request for evidence to establish that the 
beneficiary would be coming to the United States for an "event or events" as defined by the pertinent regulation. 
The failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying 
the petition. 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(14). While the director initially erred by indicating that the beneficiary was an 
WAC 02 044 5 1778 
Page 3 
intending immigrant, this error was resolved prior to issuance of the March 25, 2003 request for evidence. This 
initial error did not obviate the petitioner's obligation to respond to the director's second request for additional, 
material evidence. 
Counsel for the petitioner indicates that the director erred by failing to consider "alternative humanitarian status" 
for the beneficiary. The nature of counsel's suggestion is unclear. The instant petition seeks authorization to 
employ the beneficiary as an 0-1 nonimmigrant. There is no provision that would allow Citizenship and 
Immigration Services to assign "an alternative humanitarian status" within the context of adjudication of a 
nonimmigrant employment-based petition. 
Neither of counsel's claims address specifically the grounds for denial set forth in the decision of the director. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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. 
Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact 
in this proceeding, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.