dismissed O-1B Case: Dance

identiwing data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarrantec' 
invasion of personal privaq 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: EAC 08 168 53 173 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: APR 0 2 2010 
IN RE: 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. 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 $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Perry Rhew 
U Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
. 
EAC 08 168 53 173 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal 
as moot. 
The petitioner filed the instant petition seelung to classify the beneficiary as an 0-1 nonimmigrant pursuant to 
section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
the arts. The petitioner is self-described as a not-for-profit cooperative dance organization. It seeks to employ the 
beneficiary as a dancer/performing artist for a period of three years. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has achieved 
distinction in the arts at a national or international level. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the 
director failed to consider the importance of the beneficiary's academic background and otherwise failed to 
evaluate the beneficiary's credentials using the proper standards. 
A review of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) records indicates that the beneficiary of this 
petition is currently the beneficiary of an approved 1-129 nonimmigrant petition granting the beneficiary 0-1 
status from February 5, 2010 until December 20,2012. Because the beneficiary in the instant petition has been 
approved for employment based upon the filing of another 0-1 petition by another employer, Mer pursuit of 
the matter at hand is moot. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.