dismissed O-2 Case: Music

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
l ' 
 20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Room 3000 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 03 044 52545 OFFICE: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUL 2 5 2006 
IN RE: 
PETITION: 
 Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(l 5)(O)(ii) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101 (a)(l5)(0)(ii) 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
cided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
l i 
Administrative Appeals Office - 
WAC 03 044 52545 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The California Service Center Director denied the nonirnrnigrant visa petition, and the matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks 0-2 classification of the beneficiary, under section lOl(a)(l5)(0)(ii) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 lOl(a)(15)(0)(ii), as an essential support alien to Ashley Ingram, a 
musical recording artist and composer. 
The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary's duties are 
consistent with being an integral part of the 0-1 alien's performance and that the beneficiary has critical skills and 
experience that are not possessed by a U.S. worker. 
The petitioner submits a timely appeal accompanied by a letter fkom 
/ 
Section lOl(a)(l5)(0)(ii) of the Act provides classification to a qualified alien who seeks to enter the United 
States temporarily and solely for the purpose of accompanying and assisting in the artistic or athletic performance 
by an alien who is admitted as an 0-1 alien for a specific event pr events, is an integral part of such actual 
performance, has critical skills and experience with such alien which are not of a general nature and which cannot 
be performed by other individuals. 
After a careful review of the record, it must be concluded that the 
 ed to meet its burden of proof. 
The petitioner claims that the beneficiary has been working with 
 ver the years" as an "integral 
part" of 
 production team. The petitioner further 
 will be corning t 
United States as a replacement for ormer production assistant. As initially described b 
the beneficiary's duties as production assistant include: 
. . . administration of my recording studio; coordinating the catalog of my recorded material, 
including computer files and songs; and organizing the schedule of my recording sessions 
and business meetings. 
On appeal, whileetter focuses on the beneficiary's duties in "caordinating" his recording material 
and stresses the importance of having someone he trusts.aisisting him in this role, he does not provide any further 
details regarding the beneficiary's actual duties. As initially indicated b-he beneficiary's duties in 
"coordinating" his recorded material are only part of the beneficiary's responsibilities. -: 
. 
 When I write songs now, ali the sounds, be they vocals or instrumental, are stored in wave 
forms that are systematically compiled into songs. This is the work of an experienced 
skilled technician in this field. 
- 
When your work is structured in this way, one must-be extremely careful as to who has 
access to ones unique sounds, otherwise they can be copied and used by others without 
permission and thus undermine the work that one does. 
 . . 
There is no indication that the storage or coordination of such material is an integral part of- 
performance or of such a nature that it could not performed by a U.S. worker. The remainder of the beneficiary's 
WAC 03 044 52545 
Page 3 
duties, which include organizing 
 schedule and business meetings, also do not appear to be integral 
to 
 performances or duties that could not be performed by a U.S. worker. Moreover, although not 
specifically noted by the director, these duties do not meet the requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 
214.2(0)(4)(ii) which indicates that the beneficiary must possess critical skills "which are not of a general nature." 
Based upon the above discussion, we concur with the director's findings that the petitioner failed to establish that 
the beneficiary is an integral part of performances, that she has critical slulls and experience with 
which are not of a general nature and which canyt be performed by other individuals. 
Beyond the director's decision, we find an additional issue that precludes approval. The status of an 0-2 alien is 
contingent won the status of the 0-1 alien. The record contains a reauest for evidence issued bv the director on 
u 
April 8, 2063. In that notice, the director requested the petiti&ner t: submit evidence of 0-1 
avvroval. The record does not contain any evidence that the petitioner responded to this reauest. Although on 
- 
appeal the petitioner claims that 
 was approved as an 0-i nonimrnigrant, tie record does not 
contain any such evidence.' Going on record without svpporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated .reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. 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. 5 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
1 
 Although the AAO attempted to verify the petitioner's claims regarding Ashley Ingram's approval, the AAO was 
unable to find any approval records for