Understanding P-3S Visas: Support Personnel Guidelines

The law with regard to P-3 visas state that essential support personnel cannot be part of a P-3 petition and a separate petition is required for support personnel which is called P-3S.  Essential support personnel have to be integral part of the performance, provide support services that are essential to the performance and these support services cannot be easily performed by a US worker. Examples of support personnel include choreographers, directors, coaches and trainers.

In order to understand the P-3S visa it will be relevant to discuss here a case decided by Administrative Appeals Office(AAO) in the year 2010. The decision by AAO clearly ruled that a Sound Engineer does not qualify for P-3 and a separate P-3S petition will have to be filed.

The case involved a P-3 visa petition for an entertainment group, where the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied the visa classification for one of the 15 beneficiaries—a sound engineer.

1. Summary of the Case

• A fine arts institution petitioned for 15 individuals under the P-3 visa category for a culturally unique program.
• 14 beneficiaries (singers and musicians) were approved.
• The sound engineer was denied a P-3 visa classification because USCIS determined he was not a performer but an essential support personnel.
• The petitioner appealed the decision, arguing:
  • The sound engineer was also a lead male choral singer and choreographer.
  • USCIS had previously approved P-3 visas for the same individual.
  • The phrase “may not” in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(p)(2)(i) is permissive and not mandatory. The language says “Essential support personnel may not be included on the petition filed for the principal alien(s). These aliens require a separate petition.”
• The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the appeal, affirming the sound engineer was essential support personnel, not a principal P-3 artist.

2. Key Legal Issues and Arguments

A. Can Essential Support Personnel Be Included in a P-3 Petition?

• Regulation 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(p)(2)(i) states that essential support personnel cannot be included in the same petition as principal artists/entertainers.
• Instead, a separate petition must be filed for essential support personnel.
• The petitioner argued that the phrase “may not” was permissive, implying flexibility in including support staff in the same petition.
• The AAO rejected this argument, citing:
  • The phrase “may not” is restrictive, meaning support personnel must have a separate petition.
  • The Supplementary Information in the Federal Register (59 Fed. Reg. 41818-01) explicitly states that Congress required separate petitions for tracking purposes.

B. Did the Beneficiary Qualify as a P-3 Artist or Entertainer?

• Under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(p)(6)(i), a P-3 visa applicant must be an artist or entertainer coming to the U.S. to participate in a culturally unique event.
• The initial petition identified the beneficiary as a “sound engineer”.
• The beneficiary’s biographical data described him as having 12 years of experience in sound engineering but only mentioned singing as an extracurricular activity.
• In response to a Request for Evidence (RFE), the petitioner reaffirmed that the beneficiary was a sound engineer.
• On appeal, the petitioner claimed for the first time that the beneficiary was also a lead male choral singer and choreographer.
• However:
  • The petition and original evidence did not support this claim.
  • The resume submitted on appeal conflicted with prior submissions.
  • The AAO stated that petitioners cannot introduce new material facts on appeal (citing Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92).

C. Were Prior P-3 Approvals Relevant?

• The petitioner argued that USCIS had previously approved P-3 visas for the same individual.
• The AAO rejected this argument, citing:
  • Each petition is adjudicated separately, and prior approvals do not bind future cases (Matter of Church of Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597).
  • If past approvals were erroneous, USCIS is not required to approve subsequent petitions.

About the Author

Vasanth Vaidyanathan, Esq.

Administrator

Vasanth Vaidyanathan is an immigration attorney with over 20 years of experience focused exclusively on U.S. immigration and nationality law. He holds a LL.M. from California Western School of Law, San Deigo and advises individuals and businesses on employment and family-based immigration matters, including H-1B, PERM, EB categories, and adjustment of status. He has also been a featured speaker at immigration seminars across the U.S. To reach Vasanth visit: https://www.vnathan.com/

Author's website Author's posts