dismissed O-1B Case: Dance

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
US. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdrninistrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: - Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
JUL 2 1 2010 
PETITION: Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1(a)(15)(0) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (a)(15)(0) 
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. 5 103.5. 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 $585. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
w~erry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed the nonimmigrant visa petition seeking classification of the beneficiary under section 
10 l(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 l(a)(15)(0)(i), as an alien with 
extraordinary ability in the arts. The petitioner operates a dance studio. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as a 
dancer and choreographer for a period of three years. 
The director denied the petition on July 14,2009, concluding that the petitioner failed to submit any documentary 
evidence in support of the petition, and therefore failed to meet its burden to establish that the beneficiary meets 
the requirements for 0-1 classification. In denying the petition, the director observed that the petitioner filed the 
petition using the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Electronic Filing (e-Filing) system, and 
was therefore required to submit all required initial evidence to the service center within seven business days. 
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 appeal, the petitioner states that it submitted the required documentary 
evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility on April 21,2009, and that "it is beyond our understanding why 
the USCIS never received it." The petitioner submits documentation in support of the appeal, including a 
supporting letter, an employment contract, the beneficiary's dance resume, various reference letters, and other 
evidence pertaining to the beneficiary's professional dance career. 
Section 10 1 (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, or, with regard to motion picture and television productions, a demonstrated record of extraordinary 
achievement, and 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 extraordinary 
ability provisions of this visa classification are intended to be highly restrictive. See 137 Cong. Rec. S18247 
(daily ed., Nov. 16, 1991). In order to establish eligibility for 0-1 classification, the petitioner must establish that 
the beneficiary is "at the very top" of his field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(ii). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(0)(3)(ii) defines, in pertinent part: 
Extraordinary ability in the Jield of science, education, business, or athletics means a level of 
expertise indicating that the person is one of the small percentage who have arisen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor. 
The evidentiary criteria for aliens of extraordinary ability in the fields of science, education, business or 
athletics are set forth at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(0)(3)(iii). In addition, all 0 nonimmigrant petitions must be 
accompanied by the evidence set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(2)(ii). The issue in this matter is whether the 
director appropriately denied the petition based on the petitioner's failure to submit the required initial 
evidence for the visa classification in support of its electronically filed petition. 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonirnmigrant Worker, using the USCIS e-Filing system on 
April 19, 2009. The form instructions for Form 1-129 advise that if a petition is filed without the required initial 
Page 3 
evidence, the petitioner will not establish a basis for eligibility and USCIS may deny the petition. The 
instructions for electronic filing further instruct the petitioner that the required initial evidence must be received 
by the Service Center within seven business days of filing the form electronically. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(a)(l), the instructions contained on a petition are to be given the force and effect of a 
regulation: 
Every application, petition, appeal, motion, request or other document submitted on the form 
prescribed by this chapter shall be executed and filed in accordance with the instructions on the 
form, such instructions (including where an application or petition should be filed) being hereby 
incorporated into the particular section of the regulations in this chapter requiring its 
submission.. . . 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(l) states: 
An applicant or petitioner must establish that he or she is eligible for the requested benefit at the 
time of filing the application or petition. All required application or petition forms must be 
properly completed and filed with any initial evidence required by applicable regulations andor 
the form's instructions. Any evidence submitted in connection with the application or petition is 
incorporated into and considered part of the relating application or petition. 
Finally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(8)(ii) states, in pertinent part: 
Initial evidence. If all required initial evidence is not submitted with the application or petition 
or does not demonstrate eligibility, USCIS in its discretion may deny the application or petition 
for lack of initial evidence or ineligibility. . . . 
The director denied the petition on July 14, 2009, after waiting nearly two months for submission of the required 
initial evidence, which, as noted above, was due within seven business days of the date of filing. While the 
regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(11) provide that no supporting documents are required when a petitioner seeks 
to extend the validity of a beneficiary's original 0-1 petition unless requested by the director, the instant petition 
was for new employment. Therefore, the AAO concludes that the director's decision to deny the petition based on 
lack of initial evidence was proper. 
While the petitioner claims that it mailed the required supporting documentation to the service center within 
seven business days of filing the petition, it has provided no documentary evidence in support of this claim. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJicci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter 
of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Furthermore, the AAO notes that 
although the petitioner stated on the Form I-290B filed on August 13, 2009 that it is "in possession of copies 
of every piece of evidence," it did not submit such evidence at the time of filing the appeal, but instead 
requested additional time to prepare the appeal. The petitioner submitted evidence in support of the appeal on 
August 3 1, 2009, but rather than submitting a copy of its previous submission, the petitioner has submitted 
letters and translations bearing original signatures, a document dated July 30, 2009 and a number of 
Page 4 
documents printed from the Internet on August 29, 2009. The petitioner's failure to produce a copy of its 
claimed initial evidence submission casts doubt on its claim that the evidence was timely submitted in April 
2009. 
Therefore, the AAO concludes that the director's decision to deny the petition based on lack of initial evidence 
was proper. 
Even assuming, arguendo, that the petitioner had timely submitted the documentation provided on appeal, the 
AAO notes that the denial of the petition would have been within the scope of the director's discretionary 
authority, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(S)(ii) The evidence submitted does not include: (1) an explanation of 
the nature of the events, or activities, the beginning and ending dates for the events or activities, and a copy of any 
itinerary for the events or activities; or (2) a written advisory opinion(s) from the appropriate consulting entity. 
See 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(2)(ii). 
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. 5 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
The denial of this petition is without prejudice to the filing of a new petition by the petitioner accompanied by the 
appropriate supporting evidence and fee. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.