dismissed O-2 Case: Music

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 205~9-2090 
U.S. citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Date: AUG 1 2 2013 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiaries: 
PETITION: Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(l5)(0) ofthe Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(0) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
Tha 
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, revoked the approval ofthe nonimmigrant visa 
petition and the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
On April 16, 2012, the petitioner filed the nonimmigrant visa petition seeking classification of the 
beneficiaries under section 101(a)(15)(0)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(0)(ii), as essential support aliens to an 0-1 alien. The 0-1 alien, 
is a singer and entertainer granted 0-1 classification for employment with the petitioner as 
an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. The petitioner, a music publisher, asserts it is an agent 
performing the function of an employer. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiaries as support 
personnel for the musical performances of the 0-1 alien for a period of at least three years. 
On April 23, 2012, the director initially approved the petition. Subsequently the director received a 
letter dated April 19, 2012 from: , president of the petitioner, acknowledging he received a 
receipt for the filing of the petition from United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), 
and further stating as follows: 
Please be advised that we ARE NOT the petitioner for any of [the beneficiaries]. 
None of these individuals are employees of our company. 
Kindly review your records as I did not file this petition ... 
On September 4, 2012, the director issued a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) the approval of the 
petition, based upon the petitioner's statement that it had not filed the petition on beneficiaries' behalf. 
The NOIR offered an opportunity for the petitioner to submit evidence in support of the petition and 
in opposition to the grounds alleged for revocation of the approval of the petition. The petitioner did 
not submit a response to the NOIR. 
On January 30, 2013, the director revoked the approval of the petition. The director stated that the 
petitioner failed to respond to the NOIR and that the grounds for revocation of the approval of the 
petition had not been overcome. 
On March 5, 2013, the petitioner submitted a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B). On the 
Form I-290B, where asked to provide a statement explaining any erroneous conclusion oflaw or fact in 
the decision being appealed, counsel did not provide any statement. The petitioner checked· Box B in 
Part 2 of the form to indicate that a brief and/or additional evidence would be submitted to the AAO 
within 30 days. As of this date, no additional evidence has been incorporated into the record of 
proceeding, and the record will be considered complete. 
In a letter accompanying the appeal counsel stated as follows: 
We recently received your notice to revoke our petition filed on April16, 2012. 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
I believe this revocation is in error. I spoke with representatives of your office in 
September, 2012, advising them that my letter dated April19, 2012 was sent in error, 
as the paperwork we filed for the 0-2 was separated from our original 0-1 
paperwork. 
Given that my April 19, 2012 letter was sent in error, I would ask that you remove the 
revocation you have now processed ... 
The AAO notes that although the petitioner's letter on appeal states that the petitioner "spoke with 
representatives [of UCIS] in September 2012," when the NOIR was issued, the record contains no 
evidence in supp011 of the petitioner's assertion, such as identification of the US CIS representatives 
with whom the petitioner spoke. In addition, if the petitioner had wanted the submitted evidence to 
be considered, it should have submitted it in response to the director 's NOIR . Generally, the 
director's decision to revoke the approval of a petition will be affirmed, notwithstanding the 
submission of evidence on appeal, where a petitioner fails to offer a timely explanation or rebuttal to 
a properly issued notice of intention to revoke. See Matter of Arias, 19 I&N Dec. 568, 569 (BIA 
1988). Under the circumstances, the AAO need not and does not consider the sufficiency of 
the 
evidence submitted on appeal. Consequently, the appeal will be adjudicated based on the record of 
proceeding before the director. 
The director revoked the approval of the petition based on the petitioner's statement that it did not file 
the petition on behalf of the beneficiaries. In revoking the approval, the director observed that the 
petitioner did not submit a response to the NOIR. 
Regulations at 8 C.P.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. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the revocation of the petition 
approval. The petitioner's statement on appeal, without specifically identifying any errors on the 
part of the director, is simply insufficient to overcome the conclusions the director reached based on 
the evidence submitted by the petitioner. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.