dismissed O-1B Case: Modeling

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9870747 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG . 25, 2020 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner seeks to classify the Beneficiary, a model, as an 0-1 nonimmigrant, a visa classification 
available to aliens who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(O)(i), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(O)(i). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition on the following four grounds: 1) 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate its relationship and qualification as a United States agent, 2) the 
Petitioner did not provide a sufficient contract, 3) the Petitioner did not satisfy the advisory opinion 
requirement, and 4) the Petitioner did not show that the Beneficiary received a nomination or receipt 
of a significant national or international award, or at least three of six possible forms of documentation. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
As relevant here, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(i) provides that a petition may only be filed 
by a United States employer, a United States agent, or a foreign employer through a United States 
agent. In addition, a United States agent may file a petition in cases involving workers who are 
traditionally self-employed or workers who use agents to arrange short term employment on their 
behalf with numerous employers, and in cases where a foreign employer authorizes the agent to act in 
its behalf. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(iv)(E). Moreover, the regulation requires any written contracts 
between the petitioner and the beneficiary or, if there are not any, a summary of the terms of the oral 
agreement. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii). Furthermore, section 214(c)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) requires the petitioner to submit an advisory opinion from a peer group 
or a labor organization. See also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(D) and 214.2(0)(5) If the petitioner 
establishes that an appropriate peer group or labor organization does not exist, then a petition may be 
adjudicated without the advisory opinion. See Section 214(c)(6)(C) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(5)(i)(G). 
As it relates to a beneficiary, section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Act establishes 0-1 classification for an 
individual who has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has 
been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim, 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. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations 
define "extraordinary ability in the field of arts" as "distinction," and "distinction" as "a high level of 
achievement in the field of arts evidenced by a degree of skill and recognition substantially above that 
ordinarily encountered to the extent that a person described as prominent is renowned, leading, or well­
known in the field of arts." See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). 
Next, DHS regulations set forth alternative initial evidentiary criteria for establishing a beneficiary's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of achievements. A petitioner may submit evidence either of 
nomination for or receipt of "significant national or international awards or prizes" such as "an Academy 
Award, an Emmy, a Grammy, or a Director's Guild Award," or at least three of six listed categories of 
documents. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A)-(B). 
The submission of documents satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for 0-1 classification. See 59 Fed. Reg. 41818, 41820 (Aug. 15, 1994)("The 
evidence submitted by the petitioner is not the standard for the classification, but merely the 
mechanism to establish whether the standard has been met."). Accordingly, where a petitioner 
provides qualifying evidence satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of the record and the quality of the evidence shows extraordinary ability in the arts. See section 
101(a)(15)(o)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii), (iv). 1 
II. ANALYSIS 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief addressing only two out-of-the four grounds for the Director's 
denial. Specifically, the Petitioner contends that it satisfied the contract requirement, and it 
demonstrated that the Beneficiary met three of the categories of evidence. However, the Petitioner 
does not dispute the Director's decision regarding the United States agent relationship and 
qualification. Moreover, the Petitioner does not challenge the Director's decision relating to the 
advisory opinion requirement. 
Accordingly, we will not address the two uncontested grounds on appeal, and we deem them to be 
waived. If the affected party does not address issues raised by the director, and those issues are 
dispositive of the case, the appeal will be dismissed based on those waived issues. See, e.g., Matter 
of M-A-S-, 24 l&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009). 
Moreover, since the identified bases for denial are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the contract and Beneficiary's 
satisfaction of three categories of evidence. See I NS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts 
and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the 
1 See also Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010), in which we held that, "truth is to be determined not 
by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality." 
2 
results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to 
reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
111. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that it satisfied the statutory and regulatory requirements to 
establish the Beneficiary's eligibility for the 0-1 visa classification as an individual of extraordinary. The 
appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3