dismissed O-1B Case: Painting

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave.. N.W.. Rtn A3042 
Washington. I>C 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: EAC 04 009 53707 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 2 5 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section I Ol(a)(l5)(0)(i) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 10 l(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. 
u 
9obert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 04 009 53707 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: On February 2, 2004, the Acting Director, Vermont Service Center denied the nonimmigrant 
visa petition, in part, due to the petitioner's failure to respond to the director's request for additional evidence 
(RFE). On February 13, 2004, the director reopened the decision denying the petition to consider evidence the 
petitioner submitted in response to the RFE. The director reaffirmed its prior decision to deny the petition. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary in a part-time position as a painter. The director denied the 
petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary satisfied the regulatory standard for an 
alien with extraordinary ability in the arts. 
On appeal, the petitioner simply states as the reason for the appeal: 
Nonimmigrant visa petition was denied because the consultation letter provided failed to 
establish that the beneficiary is recognized as having a record of extraordinary ability or 
achievement in his field of endeavor. Attached please find a consultation letter from the 
Western States Arts Federation that specifically states the beneficiary meet the standards for 
extraordinary ability and achievement. Accordingly, we ask that the petition be approved on 
a motion to reopen. 
Section 10 l(a)(lS)(O)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1 10 1 (a)(] 5)(0)(i), 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, has a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement, and whose 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation, and seeks to enter the United 
States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability. 
In the instant appeal, the petitioner addressed only one issue, that of a consultation. The director discussed the 
Western States Arts Federation consultation in her decision dated February 13, 2004. The director denied the 
petition, finding that the record is insufficient to establish that the beneficiary has a demonstrated record of 
extraordinary achievement. The petitioner did not address all of the director's grounds for denial of the petition. 
The AAO will discuss the sole issue raised by the petitioner on appeal, which is whether the consultation is 
sufficient. The petitioner initially submitted a consultation dated January 26, 2004 that states that the beneficiary 
meets the standards for cultural uniqueness. "Cultural uniqueness" is an issue in cases of P-3 nonimmigrant visa, 
but is not an issue in cases of 0-1 nonimmigrant visas. On appeal, the petitioner submitted a consultation dated 
February 19, 2004, which correctly addresses the issue of whether the beneficiary is an alien of extraordinary 
ability. Both consultations are favorable. Nonetheless, consultations are advisory in nature and are not binding 
on Citizenship and Immigration Semices. 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(0)(5)(i)(D). 
In review, although the petitioner overcame one of the director's objections to approving the petition, i.e., the 
consultation, the petitioner failed to address the director's finding that the beneficiary failed to meet the 
evidentiary criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii). 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the director's decision will not be disturbed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.