dismissed O-1B Case: Music

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Rm A3042.425 I Street, N W 
Washington. DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
cOP%r 
FILE: LIN 04 092 50085 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: MAY 2 $ m$ 
PETITION: Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 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 docume~lts have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Wfobert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 04 092 50085 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Acting Nebraska Service Center Director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition in a 
decision dated August 17, 2004. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. 
The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is an agent of the petitioner. The beneficiary is a musician. The petitioner seeks an extension of O- 
1 classification of the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary ability in the arts under section 10 1 (a)(l5)(0)(i) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(0)(i), in order to continue to represent 
her for one more year. 
The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner had failed to submit a complete itinerary of the event 
or events, and a contract between the beneficiary and the employer(s), as required by the regulations. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that there is no requirement that the petitioner submit a contract between the 
beneficiary and her employer. 
Section 10l(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, 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 beneficiary is a native and citizen of the United Kingdom. According to the evidence on the record, she last 
entered the United States on March 6,2000 as an 0-1 nonimmigrant alien of extraordinary ability. The petitioner 
indicated that he is the beneficiary's agent and not her employer. 
The first issue to be addressed in this proceeding is whether the petitioner is required to submit an itinerary and a 
contract between the employer and the beneficiary. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(0)(2)(iv)(E) states, in part, that: 
Agents as petitioners. 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 . . . . A petition filed by an agent is submit to the following 
conditions: 
(1) An agent performing the function of an employer must provide the contractual 
agreement between the agent and the beneficiary . . . . 
(2) A person or company in business as an agent may file the petition involving 
multiple employers as the representative of both the employers and the 
beneficiary, if the supporting documentation includes a complete itinerary of the 
event or events. The itinerary must specify the dates of each service or 
engagement, the names and addresses of the actual employers, and the names 
and addresses of the establishments, venues, or locations where the services will 
be performed. A contract between the employers and the beneficiary is required. 
The petitioner states that he is not acting as the beneficiary's employer; therefore, the petitioner must provide an 
itinerary of the event(s) and a contract between the beneficiary and her employer. 
LIN 04 092 50085 
Page 3 
In a request for additional evidence (RFE), the director requested the petitioner to submit an itinerary of the event 
and contracts between the actual employers and the beneficiary. In response to the RFE, the petitioner wrote that 
the beneficiary has been writing for and recording a new album. 
. In review,the petitioner failed to submit the requested documentation. The "itinerary" submitted does not include 
specify the dates of each engagement, the names and addresses of the actual employers or the names and 
addresses of the locations where the services will be performed. The petitioner failed to submit a contract 
between the beneficiary and her employer. 
Beyond the director's decision, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary satisfies at least thee of 
the evidentiary criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iv). The petitioner submitted two testimonials. The 
first was writfen by the president of a recording studio, Liberte Music, that states that the beneficiary is "talented," 
"serious and dedicated." The second was written by the editor-in-chief of Trace magazine, which states that the 
beneficiary has a reputation that "places her at the top of her field." Neither testimonial establishes that the 
beneficiary has received significant recognition for achievements in her field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted numerous reviews of the beneficiary's album but failed to indicate where and when the 
reviews were published. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and AAO do not ascribe evidentiary weight 
to reviews that fail to list the name and date of publication. 
The petitioner noted that CIS approved other petitions that had been previously filed on behalf of the 
beneficiary. The director's decision does not indicate whether he reviewed the prior approvals of the other 
nonimmigrant petitions. If the previous nonimmigrant petitions were approved based on the same 
unsupported and contradictory assertions that are contained in the current record, the approval would 
constitute material and gross error on the part of the director. The AAO is not required to approve 
applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that 
may have been erroneous. See, e.g. Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 
(Comm. 1988). It would be absurd to suggest that CIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as 
binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 
U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a court 
of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the nonimmigrant petitions on 
behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service 
center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), affd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 
2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
The prior approvals do not preclude CIS form denying an extension of the original visa based on reassessment 
of the petitioner's qualifications. Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurcl~, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 (5" 
Cir. 2004). 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 
1361. Here, the petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.