dismissed O-2 Case: Horse Racing

(b)(6)
u._s. peiJI!r:tJ!l.e*.t ofHo~~IJU!d setufl.tY 
·U.S. Citizenship and Immigration. Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 205~9-2090 
u.s. t.:itiz~l1SJ1~p 
. and Illtttiigtatio:n 
Services: .. 
Date: MAR 0 8 2013 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section I 0 I (a)( I5)(0) of the Immigration 
and Nationality. Act, 8l:J.S.C. § IlOI(a)(l5)(Q) ' 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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 ~ou might have concerning your case must be made to that office. · 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to ·have considered, you may file a motion· to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
. accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § I03.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be· aware that 8 C.F.R. § I03.5(a)(l)(i) requires any mqtion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
T~hank you_, ; _ . 
• - ._-,::::~. ;~,:;.,.- ___ ;:·1" ,.-..... 
. -~·-"X}'(._.:: .... 
. -~· · ..... 
. ',-·;",\:::;;, ,' 
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
(b)(6)
,4 _ -.. 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California S~rvice Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will summarily 
dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed the nonimmigrant visa petition seeking classification of the beneficiary under 
section 10l(a)(l5)(0)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), -8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(l5)(0)(ii), as an essential support alien to a jockey, who has been granted 
0-1 classification for employment with the petitioner as an alien of extraordinary ability in athletics. 
The petitioner, an individual involved in ilie business of thoroughbred training and racing, seeks to 
employ the beneficiary as a jockey valet for a period of at least three years. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner faile~ to establish that the beneficiary has 
had a prior working relationship that is critical and essential to support the 0-1 's athletic 
performance as a jockey . . In addition, the director determined that, based on the evidence of record, 
the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary possesses critical skills and experience with the 0-1 
alien which are not of a general nature and which are not possessed by a U.S. worker. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
counsel for the petitioner states, "Additional evidence will be submitted to the AAO within 30 days." 
The petitioner filed the appeal on January 26, 2012. As of this date, more than one year has passed and 
the AAO has not received the brief or additional evidence as indicated on the Form 1-2908. 
Accordingly, the record will be. considered complete. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) state, in pertinent part: 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when 
the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law 
or statement of fact for the appeal. 
On appeal, the petitioner does not identify -specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of 
fact on the part of the director as a ba.sis for the appeal. As noted above, counsel stated that he would 
submit additional evidence in support of the appeal at a later date and has failed to do so. Accordingly, 
the AAO will swrunarily dismiss the ·appeal. 
The .denial of this petition is without prejudice to the filing of a new petition by the petitioner 
accompanied by the appropriate supporting evidence and fee. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely 
with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act; 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to 
identify specifically an erroneous conclusion -of law or a statement of fact in support of the appeal, 
the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.