sustained O-1B Case: Music

identifying data deleted to 
rreV~nt clearly unwarranted 
nVaSlOn of personal privacy 
l'UBLIC COPl 
FILE: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Se.:urity 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Date: OCT 2 8 2010 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section IOI(a)(lS)(O) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § llOl(a)(IS)(O). 
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. 
Thank you, 
erry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vennont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will witbdraw the director's decision 
and sustain tbe appeal. 
The petitioner filed this petition seeking to classifY the beneficiary as an 0-1 nonimmigrant pursuant to section 
101 (a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the 
arts. The petitioner is an artist management company and the beneficiary is a concert pianist. The petitioner 
requests that the be 0-1 classification for a period of 17 days in order to perfonn in the 
United States with the 
On September 28, 2009, tbe director denied the petition concluding: (1) that the petitioner failed to submit a 
written consultation from an appropriate labor organization; and (2) that the petition was filed by the 
beneficiary rather than by a United States employer, a United States agent, or by a foreign employer through a 
United States agent. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded 
the appeal to the AAO. On appeal, the petitioner submits a consultation from the 
-
I. The Law 
Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i), provides fortbe classification ofa qualified 
alien who: 
has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been 
demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim ... 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 .. 
to enter the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability. 
Section 101(a)(46) of tbe Act states tbat tbe tenn "extraordinary ability" means, for purposes of section 
101 (a)(15)(0)(i), in the case of the arts, distinction. Pursuant to the definition at 8 c.P.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(ii) 
pertaining to aliens of extraordinary ability in the arts, "distinction" means a high level of achievement in tbe 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(0)(l)(i) provides tbat under section 101(a)(l5)(0) of the Act, a qualified alien 
may be authorized to come to tbe United States to perfonn services relating to an event or events if petitioned for 
by an employer. 
Page 3 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 2l4.2(0)(2)(i), an 0-1 petition may only be filed by a United States employer, a United 
States agent, or a foreign employer through a United States agent. An 0 alien may not petition for himself or 
herself. 
The regulatory requirements for agents as petitioners are set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 2l4.2(0)(2)(iv)(E): 
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. A United States agent may be: The actual employer of the beneficiary, the representative 
of both the employer and the beneficiary, or, a person or entity authorized by the employer to act 
for, or in place of, the employer as its agent. 
Finally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 2l4.2(0)(2)(ii) provides that petitions for 0 aliens shall be accompanied by 
the following: 
(A) The evidence specified in the particular section for the classification; 
(B) Copies of any written contracts between the petitioner and the alien beneficiary, or, if 
there is no written contract, a summary of the terms of the oral agreement under which 
the alien will be employed; 
(C) 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; and 
(D) A written advisory opinion(s) from the appropriate consulting entity or entities. 
II. Discussion 
A. Written Advisory Opinion from an Appropriate Consulting Entity 
The first issue addressed by the director is whether the petitioner submitted the required written advisory 
opinion from an appropriate consulting entity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0 )(2)(ii)(0). Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2l4.2(0)(5)(ii)(A), consultation with a peer group in the area of the alien's ability (which may include a 
labor organization) or a person or person with expertise in the area of the alien's ability, is required in an 0-1 
petition for an alien of extraordinary ability. 
The petitioner initially submitted the petition without the required written advisory opinion. The director 
issued a request for evidence ("RFE") on August 27, 2009, the director requested that the petitioner provide a 
written advisory opinion from an appropriate association or entity with expertise in the beneficiary's area of 
ability. The director advised that, in the event that the opinion is not from a United States labor organization, 
USCIS would contact the national office of an appropriate labor organization for an opinion, pursuant to 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(5)(i)(F). 
Page 4 
The petitioner's response to the RFE included recommendation letters from 
and •••••••••••••••• 
The director denied the petition on September 28, 2009, based on the petitioner's failure to provide a written 
consultation from a labor organization. The director noted that USCIS had requested a consultation from the 
but had received no response. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a favorable consultation from the 
was issued on October 2, 2009. 
which 
Upon review, the AAO will withdraw the director's determination. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(0)(5)(i)(F) requires the petitioner to submit a written consultation from a peer group, labor 
organization, or from a person or persons with expertise in the beneficiary's field. The petitioner is not 
required to submit a consultation from a labor organization, as long as it submits one of the qualifYing forms 
of documentation. In fact, the request that USCIS sent to the on 
September 23, 2009 states: "Petitioner has submitted a letter. This has been determined to be sufficient 
evidence of consultation from a peer group." 
The regulations require USCIS to request a labor consultation when the petitioner provides an advisory 
opinion from a peer group or from a person or persons with expertise in the beneficiary'S field. In this case, 
the director determined that the petition, which was submitted without a labor consultation, merited 
expeditious handling. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(0)(5)(i)(E), under such circumstances, the labor 
organization has 24 hours to respond to the director's request for an advisory opinion, and if no response is 
received within 24 hours, USCIS shall render a decision without the advisory opinion. Therefore, it was 
improper for the director to deny the petition based on the petitioner's failure to submit a consultation with a 
labor organization. Under the circumstances, the labor consultation should have been waived. 
B. Filing of Petition by a U.S. Employer, U.S. Agent or a Foreign Employer through a U.S. Agent. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0 )(2)(i) provides that an 0 alien may not petition for himself of herself, but 
rather, the petition must be filed by a United States employer, a United States agent, or a foreign employer 
through a United States agent. 
The director denied the petition determining that "the name of the petitioner is the same name as the 
beneficiary." Upon review, the AAO will withdraw this determination. 
A careful review of the petition and supporting evidence reveals that the instant matter was not a self-petition, 
but a petition properly filed by a United States agent. 
The AAO notes that the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, was completed improperly, with 
the beneficiary's name and address provided in Part I, Information about the employer filing the petition. 
Page 5 
However, the petition was signed at Part 6 by for an artist 
management company, not by the beneficiary, Information regarding this business was provided at Part 5 of 
the Form 1-129, where the petitioner is asked to provide information about the employer. In addition on the 0 
and P Classification Supplement to Form 1-129, the petitioner identified the "Name of person or organization 
filing petition" as " 
The regulation at 8 C.F,R. § 214.2(0)(2)(iv)(E)(2) provides that a person or company in business as an agent 
may file the petition involving multiple employers 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 establishment, venues or 
locations where the services will be performed. The petition must also be accompanied by a contract between 
the employers and the beneficiary. 
Here, the petition is accompanied by contracts between the beneficiary and the two symphony orchestras that 
have invited him to perform in the United States, and which otherwise meet the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(0)(2)(iv)(E)(2). Therefore, upon review of the petition and the totality of the record, the AAO 
concludes that the instant petition was not in fact filed by the beneficiary, but by a United States agent. 
Accordingly, the AAO will withdraw the director's finding that the beneficiary self-petitioned. 
The director cited no other grounds for denying the petition, and upon de novo review, the AAO sees no 
additional basis for denial. Accordingly, the AAO will withdraw the director's decision dated September 28, 
2009 and approve the petition. As always in these proceedings, the burden of proof rests solely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.s.C. § 1361. Upon review, the petitioner has met its burden of proof. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.