dismissed O-1B Case: Acting

identifying rlat8 deleted cO 
prevent cic.:"" ',; J.,warranle(] 
.invasion of perSONll pti""",,, 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: NOV 08 Z011 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
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 Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1101(a)(15)(O)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
"-
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this petition seeking to classifY the beneficiary as an 0-1 nonimmigrant pursuant to section 
10 I (a)(lS)(O)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), as an alien with extraordinary achievement in 
the motion picture or television industry. The petitioner is __ based talent agency and the beneficiary is 
an actor. The petitioner requests that the beneficiary be granted 0-1 status for a period of five years. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to provide written consultations from an 
appropriate labor union representing the beneficiary's occupational peers and a management organization in the 
area of the beneficiary's extraordinary achievement, as required by section 214(c)(3)(A) of the Act and the 
regulations at 8 C.P.R. §§ 214.2(0)(2)(ii)(D) and 214.2(0)(5)(iii). 
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 the Porm 1-290B, Notice of Appeal, the petitioner states: 
Per your request in your denial letter, I am attaching herewith affidavits of: 
• 
• Letter from 
• 
• Letter from Management/production com~)any: 
Section 10 I (a)(IS)(O)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 110 l(a)(IS)(O)(i), provides classification to a qualified alien who 
has, with regard to motion picture and television productions, a demonstrated record of extraordinary 
achievement, 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.P.R. § 214.2( 0)(3)(ii) provides the following pertinent definition: 
Extraordinary achievement with respect to motion picture and television productions, as 
commonly defined in the industry, means a very high level of accomplishment in the motion 
picture or television industry evidenced by a degree of skill and recognition significantly 
above that ordinarily encountered to the extent that the person is recognized as outstanding, 
notable, or leading in the motion picture or television field. 
The regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(v) outline the evidentiary requirements that must be met in order for a 
petitioner to establish that an alien is recognized as having a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement in 
the motion picture or television industry. In addition, the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(0)(2)(ii) requires the 
petitioner to submit copies of any written contracts between the petitioner and the beneficiary; an explanation of 
the nature of the events or activities, along with an itinerary; and two consultations, one from an appropriate 
union and one from an appropriate management organization. 
Page 3 
Pursuant to section 214(c)(3)(A) of the Act, an a-I petition with respect to aliens seeking entry for a motion 
picture or television production shall be approved only after consultation with the appropriate union 
representing the alien's occupational peers and a management organization in the area of the alien's ability. 
Specific consultation requirements for an a-I alien of extraordinary achievement are set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(0 )(5)(iii): 
In the case of an alien working on a motion picture or television production, consultation 
shall be made with the appropriate union representing the alien's occupational peers and a 
management organization in the area of the alien's ability. If an advisory opinion is not 
favorable to the petitioner, the advisory opinion must set forth a specific statement of facts 
which supports the conclusion reached in the opinion. Ifthe advisory opinion is favorable to 
the petitioner, the written advisory opinion from the labor and management organizations 
should describe the alien's achievements in the motion picture or television field and state 
whether the position requires the services of an alien of extraordinary achievement. If a 
consulting organization has no objection to the approval of the petition, the organization may 
submit a letter of no objection in lieu of the above. 
As noted above, the director denied the petition based on the petitioner's failure to submit the required 
consultations from an appropriate union representing the beneficiary's occupation peers and from a management 
organization in the area of the beneficiary's ability. It is noted that the director issued a detailed request for 
evidence ("RFE") on December 2, 20 I 0, in which the director clearly advised the petitioner of the consultation 
requirement and allowed the petitioner six weeks to submit the two required consultations. While the petitioner 
submitted a response to the RFE, the petitioner's response did not include the required consultations. Any 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). 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a consultation from the appropriate labor union in the 
beneficiary's field, along with two letters apparently intended to meet the requirement that the petitioner submit a 
written consultation from a management organization in the beneficiary's area of ability. The petitioner describes 
the entities that provided the letters as "management companies." 
Where, as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an 
opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on 
appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 
(BIA 1988). If the petitioner had wanted the submitted evidence to be considered, it should have submitted 
the documents in response to the director's request for evidence. Id. Under the circumstances, the AAO need 
not and does not consider the sufficiency of the evidence submitted on appeal. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v) state, 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. 
Page 4 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affinns the denial of the petition. The petition 
was denied based on the petitioner's failure to submit required evidence and the petitioner does not claim that 
such evidence was, in fact, submitted prior to the adjudication of the petition. The petitioner has not specifically 
identified any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact on the part of the director as a basis for the appeal. 
The record before the director contained neither of the required written consultations required for the requested 
visa classification pursuant to section 2l4( c )(3)( A) of the Act, and the petition was properly denied for this 
reason. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1362. Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identifY specifically 
an erroneous conel us ion of law or a statement of fact in support of the appeal, the petitioner has not sustained that 
burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.