dismissed
O-1B
dismissed O-1B Case: Acting
Decision Summary
The director initially denied the petition because the petitioner failed to submit required evidence, such as a consultation from a labor union and a proper itinerary, even after a Request for Evidence was issued. The subsequent appeal was rejected by the AAO because it was filed after the 30-day deadline had passed, making it untimely.
Criteria Discussed
Consultation Itinerary Contracts Extraordinary Achievement
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity • • dg†g deleted to U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServiEes AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO) yg† C C 20 MassachusettsAve.. N.W., MS2090 of personal priv8C} Washin on,pC 2057932090 myasi# U.S. itizenship PUBLIC COPY - and Immigration Services FEB272012 DATE: Office: CALIFORNLASERV[CECENTER FILE: IN RE: Petitioner: Beneficiary: Petition: Petitionfor aNonimmigrantWorkerunderSection101(a)(15)(O)(i)of theImmigrationand NationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ l l01(a)(15)(O)(i) ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER: INSTRUCTIONS: Thisis thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase.All documentshavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Anyfurtherinquirymustbemadetothatoffice. If youbelievethelaw wasinappropriatelyappliedor youhaveadditionalinformationthatyouwishto have considered,you may file a motion to reconsideror a motion to reopen. Pleaserefer to 8 C.F.R, § 103.5for the specific requirements.All motionsmustbe submittedto the office that originally decidedyour caseby filing a Form I-290B,Notice of Appealor Motion, with a feeof $585. Any motion mustbe filed within 30 daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto reconsiderorreopen,asrequiredby 8C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i). PerryRhew, Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice www.uscis.gov Page2 DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The matteris now beforethe AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will rejectedasuntimelyfiled. Thepetitionerstatesthatit operatesanentertainermanagementcompany.It filed the instantpetition seekingto classifythebeneficiaryasanO-1nommmigrantpursuantto section101(a)(15)(O)(i)of the ImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct). asanalienof extraordinaryability.Thepetitionerseeksto temporarilyemploythebeneficiaryasanactressfor aperiodof threeyears. Thedirectordeniedthe petitionon August5, 2011,concludingthattheevidencesubmitteddoesnot supporta claimof extraordinaryachievementin themotionpictureandtelevisionindustry,asdefined by thestatuteandregulations.Thedirectoralsonotedthatthepetitionerfailedto submittherequired documentationto supportthe beneficiary'seligibility includingan itinerarydescribingthe proposed event,alongwith aconsultationfrom anappropriatelaborunionandmanagementorganization. Counselfor thepetitionerfiled theFormI-129,Petitionfor aNonimmigrantWorker,June1,2011,but did notsubsequentlysubmittherequiredinitial evidencein supportof thepetition. OnJune13,2011 the director issueda requestfor evidence,grantingthe petitioner 12 weeksto provideddocumentary evidencedemonstratingthat the beneficiarymeetsthe statutoryand regulatorycriteria as an alien of extraordinaryability in the arts or an alien of extraordinaryachievementin the motion pictureor televisionindustry,aswell asa writtenconsultationfrom anappropriatelaborunionor peergroup,an itineraryfor thebeneficiary,andcopiesof anywrittencontractsbetweenthepetitionerandbeneficiary. OnJuly 11.2011,counselfor thepetitionersubmitteda statementindicatingthatpreviouslysubmitted evidence,namely printouts from the websitewww.IMDb.com indicate that the beneficiaryhas 3reviousi helda leadrole in herwork with refersto a statingthat[thebeneficiary]qualifiesasana teno extraordinaryability . . hasover 18yearsof experiencein the motion picture industry." The petitionerdid not rovide evidenceaddressingwhetherthe contractsubmittedbetweenthe beneficiaryand indicatesthat the projectedevents end earlier than the requestedvalidity date. Furthermore,the petitioner submittedits own statementof the beneficiary's eligibility, which does not constitutea written consultationfrom an appropriatelabor union or peergroup. The directorsubsequentlydenied thepetitionbasedoninsufficientevidenceof eligibility for theO-1classification. On September12,2011,counselfor thepetitionerfiled a FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion, indicatingthathewouldsubmita brief and/oradditionalevidencewithin 30 days. Counselfailedto submita brief or additionalevidence.An affectedpartyfiling from within the UnitedStateshas30 daysfrom the dateof an adversedecisionto file an appeal. An appealreceivedafter the 30-day periodhastolled will not be accepted.The 30-dayperiodfor submittingan appealbegins3 days aftertheNoticeof Decisionis mailed. 8 C.F.R.§ 245a.20(b)(1). Page3 Therecordreflectsthatthedirectorsenthisdecisionof August5,2011to theapplicant[andtocounsell at their addressesof record. United StatesCitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)receivedthe appeal34 dayslateron September8, 2012. Therefore,theappealwasuntimelyfiled. ORDER: Theappealisrejectedasuntimelyfiled.
Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial
MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.
Avoid This in My Petition →No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.