dismissed O-1B Case: Fine Arts

(b)(6)
Date: OCT 0 4 2013 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S:J~.epart:oie)l(l>QloiDeland ' Se~;~rity 
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 
F~E: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § llOl(a)(lS)(O)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
(b)(6) Non-precedent decision 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter 
is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed as moot. 
On September 26, 2012, the petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to classify the beneficiary 
pursuant to section 101(aX15)(0Xi) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(l5)(0Xi) as an alien with extraordinary ability in the arts. The petitioner seeks to temporarily employ 
the beneficiary in the position of a fine artist. The petitioner requests that the beneficiary be granted 0-1 
classification for a period of three years. 
The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner had failed to establish that the beneficiary qualifies as 
an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary meets the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(oX3)(iv)(A), or any of the six evidentiary criteria 
set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B). 
A review of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) records indicates that a different petitioner 
filed a separate Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, also on September 26, 2012 (EAC-12-253-
51623). USCIS approved the petition on October 10, 2012, and granted the beneficiary 0-1 status from 
October 10, 2012 to September 23, 2015. While the petitioner has not withdrawn the appeal in this 
proceeding, it would appear that the beneficiary is presently authorized for employment with a different U.S. 
petitioner in 0-1 status and the issues in this proceeding are moot. 
Accordingly, the AAO finds that the beneficiary's current nonimmigrant status deprives this appeal of any 
practical significance. Considerations of prudence warrant the dismissal ofthe appeal as moot. See Matter of 
Luis, 22 I&N Dec. 747, 753 (BIA 1999). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed as moot.