dismissed EB-1A Case: Art

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve.,N.W., MS 2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
8 U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: OFFICE:NEBRASKASERVICECENTER FILE:
OCT2 7 2011
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien Workeras an Alien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct; 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ON BEHALFOFPETITIONER:
SELF-REPRESENTED
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the
documentsrelatedto this matterhavebeenreturnedto theoffice thatoriginally decidedyour case.Please
beadvisedthatanyfurtherinquiry thatyou mighthaveconcerningyour casemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believethe law wasinappropriatelyappliedby us in reachingour decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyou wish to haveconsidered,you mayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopen.
Thespecificrequirementsfor filing sucha requestcanbefoundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.All motionsmustbe
submittedto theoffice thatoriginallydecidedyourcaseby filing a FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must
befiled within 30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The employment-basedimmigrantvisa petition was deniedby the Director,
NebraskaServiceCenter,on April 15,2010,andis nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice
(AAO) onappeal.Theappealwill besummarilydismissed.
The petitioner seeksclassificationas an employment-basedimmigrant pursuantto section
203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A),asan
alien of extraordinaryability asan artist. At the time of the original filing of thepetition,the
petitioner submitteddocumentationbut failed to specificallyidentify the criteria under the
regulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)whichhepurportedlymet. It wasnotapparentfromthereview
of the evidenceto which criteriathe evidencepertained. The burdenis on the petitionerto
establisheligibility andnot on the directorto infer or second-guessthe intendedcriteria. As
such,thedirectorissueda requestfor additionalevidencepursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.2(b)(8)describingeachof thetencriteriaundertheregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).
In responseto the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted additional
documentationbut againfailed to identify the intendedcriteria, as well as identifying which
documents,if any, pertained to the specific criteria. Based on the petitioner's submitted
documentation,the director determinedin his decision that the petitioner failed to establish
eligibility for the awardscriterion pursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i),the
membershipcriterionpursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii),the published
material criterion pursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), and the original
contributionscriterionpursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(v).
On appeal,the petitionergenerallydisputesthe director'sfindingswithout explaininghow the
conclusionsof thedirectorwereincorrectasa matterof law or statementof fact. Theregulation
at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v)providesthat "[a]n officer to whom an appealis taken shall
summarily dismiss any appealwhen the party concernedfails to identify specifically any
erroneousconclusionof law or statementof fact for theappeal." In this case,thepetitionerhas
not identifiedasa properbasisfor the appealan erroneousconclusionof law or a statementof
fact in the director's decision. Instead,the petitioner briefly assertsthat the documentary
evidencedemonstrateshis eligibility for the membershipcriterion, the publishedmaterial
criterion, and the original contributionscriterion. Again, the petitioner offers no specific
argumentthatdemonstrateserroron thepartof thedirectorbasedupontherecordthatwasbefore
him.
TheAAOs notesthatthepetitionerdid notaddressor contestthedecisionof thedirectoror offer
additionalargumentsfor the awardscriterion. The AAO, therefore,considersthis issueto be
abandoned.SeeSepulvedav. U.S./ltt'y Gen.,401F.3d1226,1228n.2 (11thCir.2005).
Regardingthemembershipcriterion,thepetitionerargued:
Isn't it contrarythatthedecisionacknowledgedmy membershipin anassociation
in my field which requiresoutstandingachievements;yet it states"evidence
alreadyin existenceprior to submissionof the petition is given much greater
weightthanevidencegeneratedafterthepetitionhasbeensubmitted". I already
Page3
providedthat evidencein the form of my membershipin the Artists Union of
Contraryto the petitioner's assertionson appeal,the director did not acknowledgethat the
petitionerwasa memberof the andthat it wasan associationthat
requiredoutstandingachievementsof it members. In fact, the director indicatedthat the
petitionersubmitteda self-servingstatementassertingthat he was a memberand specifically
determinedthat "the record shows no such evidenceof the petitioner's membershipin
associationsin the field which require outstandingachievementsof their members." The
petitioner failed to demonstratethat the director madeany erroneousconclusionof law or
statementof factregardingthemembershipcriterion.
Regardingthe publishedmaterialcriterion, the directorsufficiently discussedthe petitioner's
documentaryevidenceanddeterminedthat the materialsubmittedby the petitionerrelatedto
otherartistsanddid not evenmentionthepetitioner. On a eal the etitionerclaimedthathe
has"beenin contactwith an aboutarticleson my
uniquestyle." Again, thepetitionerfailedto addressanyof thedirector'sspecificfindingsand
offeredno argumentestablishingthatthedirector'sdeterminationfor this criterionwasin error.
Moreover,eligibility must be establishedat the time of filing. 8 C.F.R.§§ 103.2(b)(1),(12);
Matter ofKatigbak, 14I&N Dec.45,49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971).A petitioncannotbeapprovedat
a futuredateafterthepetitionerbecomeseligibleundera newsetof facts. Matter ofIzummi,22
I&N Dec. 169,175(Comm'r 1998). Thatdecisionfurtherprovides,citing Matter ofBardouille,
18 I&N Dec. 114(BIA 1981),that USCIScannot"considerfacts that comeinto beingonly
subsequentto thefiling of a petition." Id. at 176. Thespeculativeassertionof possiblematerial
is not sufficientto demonstratethattherehasalreadybeenpublishedmaterialabouthim relating
to hiswork pursuantto theplainlanguageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iii).
Regardingthe original contributionscriterion,the petitionerarguesthat his "contributionsare
original and recognizedas outstanding." Onceagain,the petitioner failed to explain how the
director's decision for this criterion was incorrect basedon the record that was before him.
Furthermore,the plain languageof the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)requires
"[e]vidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly,artistic, athletic, or business-related
contributionsof major significancein thefield." Simplymakingcontributions,evensignificant
contributions,do not satisfythe plain languageof this regulatorycriterionunlessthepetitioner
demonstratesthathiscontributionshavebeen"of majorsignificancein thefield."
Finally, thepetitionerargues:
The decisioncontaineda descriptionof requirementsand statedto include 10
standardsas governedby the regulation. It statedthat 3 of the 10 shouldbe
required.However,it wenton to statethatif the"standardsdonotreadilyapply.
. . thepetitionermaysubmitcomparableevidenceto establish. . . eligibility".
I havedonethat in the original submissionandalsowhenAdditional Evidence
wasrequested.
Page4
A review of the record of proceedingfails to reflect that the petitioner claimedeligibility for
comparableevidencepursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(4)at thetime of theoriginal
filing of thepetition or in responseto the director'srequestfor additionalevidence. As such,the
directorcouldnot haveerredin his decisionasthepetitioneris only claimingeligibility for thefirst
time on appeal. Furthermore,the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)providesthat evidenceof
sustainednationalor intemationalacclaim"shall" includeevidenceof a one-timeachievementor
evidenceof at leastthreeof thetenregulatorycategoriesof evidenceto establishthebasiceligibility
requirements.Thetencategoriesin theregulationsaredesignedto coverdifferentareas;not every
criterion will apply to every occupation.For example,the criterionat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vii)
implicitly appliesto thevisualarts,andthecriterionat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(x)expresslyappliestothe
performingarts. TheAAO furtheracknowledgesthattheregulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(4)provides
"[i]f theabovestandardsdonotreadilyapplyto the[petitioner's)occupation,thepetitionermaysubmit
comparableevidenceto establishthe [petitioner's]eligibility." It is clearfrom the useof the word
"shall" in 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)that the rule, not the exception,is that the petitionermustsubmit
evidenceto meetat leastthreeof theregulatorycriteria. Thus,it is thepetitioner'sburdento explain
whytheregulatorycriteriaarenotreadilyapplicableto hisoccupationandhowtheevidencesubmitted
is "comparable"to theobjectiveevidencerequiredat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).
Theregulatorylanguageprecludestheconsiderationof comparableevidencein this case,asthereis
no indicationthateligibility for visapreferencein thepetitioner'soccupationasan artistcannotbe
establishedby the ten criteria specifiedby the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3). In fact, as
indicatedin this decision,thepetitionermentionedevidencethatrelatedto four of thetencriteriaat
theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3). An inabilityto meeta criterion,however,is notnecessarily
evidencethat the criteriondoesnot apply to the petitioner'soccupation.Moreover,althoughthe
petitionerfailedto claimtheseadditionalcriteria,theAAO findsthatanartistcouldserveasajudgeof
theworkof otherspursuanttotheregulationat8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iv)andthatanartistcouldcould
commanda high salaryor highremunerationpursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix).
The petitionerprovided no documentationas to why this provision of the regulationwould not be
appropriateto the professionof a textile artist. Furthermore,the petitioner failed to indicatewhat
evidenceshould be comparativelyanalyzedand how the evidenceis comparableto any of the
regulatorycriteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Wherean alien is simply unableto meetor
submit documentaryevidenceof three of thesecriteria, the plain languageof the regulationat
8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(4)doesnotallowfor thesubmissionof comparableevidence.
As statedin theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.3(a)(1)(v),anappealshallbe summarilydismissed
if thepartyconcernedfails to identify specificallyanyerroneousconclusionof law or statement
of fact for theappeal. As thepetitionerdid not contestanyof theotherfindingsof thedirector
andoffersno substantivebasisfor thefiling of theappealfor anyof thecriteria,theregulations
mandatethesummarydismissalof theappeal.
ORDER:Theappealisdismissed.