dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarr~ted 
invMieo of personal pnvac~ 
PUBLICCOPV 
DATE: APR 2 0 2012 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and ImmigratIon 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1)(A) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 11S3(b)(1)(A) 
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 you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
PerryRhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petltIOn was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. 
The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. A 1153(b)(1)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established the requisite extraordinary ability through extensive documentation and sustained 
national or international acclaim. The director s decision sufficiently discussed the deficiencies in 
the petitioner s documentary evidence as it related to the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
A 204.5(h)(3) and found that the petitioner had failed to establish sustained national or 
international acclaim and that he was among that small percentage at the very top of his field of 
endeavor. 8 c.F.R. A 204.5(h)(2). 
On appeal, counsel states: 
The Service denied the 1-140 petition based on the fact that the petitioner does not meet 
three of the ten qualifying criteria under INA Section 203(b)(1)(A). The Service 
acknowledges that the petitioner has met two of them. In its decision, the Service states 
that the petitioner made no response to USCIS request for evidence. However, this 
office has never received such request from the Service. Therefore, the petitioner appeals 
the Service s decision both on its merits and on the fact that he has never got the notice. 
Petitioner therefore requests that a copy of the original request for evidence be re-mailed 
to his representative s address. Petitioner requests additional time to submit 
supplemental brief and additional evidence in this matter. 
Counsel claims that her office did not receive the director s request for evidence (RFE). 
However, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services records confirm that the director issued 
the RFE on August 19, 2010. 1 An uncorroborated, self-serving denial of receipt is weak 
evidence, even if sworn. Joshi v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 732, 735-736 (7th Cir. 2004). As such, 
absent sufficient, objective evidence to support the counsel s claim that she did not receive a 
copy of the director s RFE, the AAO finds that the director s RFE was received as it was 
properly served in accordance with 8 C.F.R. A 103.5a. The unsupported assertions of counsel do 
not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of 
Lallreano, 19 I&N Dec. 1,3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 
(BIA 1980). 
Regardless, even if the petitioner were to establish non-receipt of the director s RFE, which he 
has not, the director s December 14, 2010 decision denying the petition specifically informed the 
petitioner of the deficiencies in the evidence relating to the regulatory criteria at 8 c.F.R. 
A 204.5(h)(3). As the director s denial notice properly informed the petitioner of the specific 
deficiencies in the record, it is not clear what remedy would be appropriate beyond the appeal 
process itself. This process allows the petitioner to submit a brief and/or evidence in support of 
I A copy of the director s RFE is attached to this decision. 
Page 3 
the appeal contesting the director s grounds for denial. See 8 C.F.R. A A 103.3(a)(2)(vi) and (vii). 
The petitioner S appellate submission, however, does not specifically challenge any of the 
director s findings or point to specific errors in the director s analyses of the documentary 
evidence submitted for the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. A 204.5(h)(3). Further, counsel 
does not explain how the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner supports a finding of 
eligibility. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. A 103.3(a)(1)(v) provides that [a]n 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. In this matter, 
the petitioner has not identified as a proper basis for the appeal an erroneous conclusion of law or 
a statement of fact in the director s decision. The petitioner s appellate submission offers only a 
brief statement asserting that the petitioner qualifies as an alien of extraordinary ability and does 
not specify where the alleged error on the part of the director occurred. Moreover, the appellate 
submission was unaccompanied by arguments or evidence addressing the regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. A 204.5(h)(3) which the petitioner claims to meet. 
On the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, in Part 2, Information About the Appeal or 
Motion, counsel indicated that a brief and/or evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 
days. The appeal was filed on December 30, 2010. As of this date, more than fifteen months 
later, the AAO has received nothing further. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. A 103.3(a)(1)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the party 
concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for 
the appeal. The petitioner has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not 
provided any additional evidence pertaining to his eligibility for the classification sought. The 
appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.