dismissed O-1B Case: Audio Production

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave.. N.W.. Rm. A3042 
Washington. DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: SRC 04 180 52095 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)( 15)(0)(i) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(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. 
V 
wobert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 04 180 52095 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center, and is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner is a church that seeks to employ the beneficiary as an Audio Production EngineerMastering for a 
period of one year. In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner indicated that it had 
filed under the wrong classification. The director noted that the petitioner must submit a new petition on Form 1- 
129 if it wishes to seek to employ the beneficiary under a different nonimmigrant classification. The director 
denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary satisfied the regulatory 
standard for an alien with extraordinary ability in the arts. 
r.4 * 
Section 101 (a)(15)(O)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 I 10l(&l5)(0)(i)., 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 or, with regard 1:o motion 
picture and television productions, has a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement, and whose 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation, and seeks to enter the United 
States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner requested that the case be reviewed as a petition for a P-1 visa. The petitioner failed to 
address specifically the grounds for denial set forth in the decision of the director. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 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 29 1 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1361. 
The petitioner has not met that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.