dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

1I.S. Departatctilt ui' Homctland Sccurit> 
U.S. Citirenship and Immigration Sewices 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
SRC 08 039 50581 
 JAN 2 2 2010 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; 8 U.S.C. $ 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. ij 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
,&DI&ct 
17 Perry Rhew 
( Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: 
 The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, on July 24, 2008, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The 
appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 11 53(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in athletics. The director determined that the petitioner had not established 
the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate 
the receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3). 
A review of the director's decision reflects that he found the petitioner eligible for two of the criteria 
under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the petitioner established eligibility under 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(i) (lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards) and 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(ii) (membership in associations in the field). On appeal, counsel claims that the director's 
decision is erroneous because the petitioner "has been ranked in the Top 10 Swimmers of the World for 
the past several years." Even though counsel claims that "[ilnitial evidence submitted with 1-140 
petition supports this claim," a review of the record does not contain any documentary evidence 
reflecting the petitioner's top 10 world ranking. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, 
the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions 
of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); 
Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1,3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Rarnirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 
503, 506 (BIA 1980). Regardless, counsel failed to demonstrate how the petitioner's alleged world 
ranking establishes eligibility for any of the other criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3), which 
were specifically addressed by the director. Moreover, counsel fails to address the director's remaining 
findings regarding the petitioner's failure to establish his plans to continue to work in the swimming 
field in the United States pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act, and the petitioner's failure to 
establish how he will substantially benefit prospectively the United States by training and swimming for 
a foreign national team in the 2008 Olympics pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A)(iii) of the Act. 
In support of the appeal, counsel also submitted a prior unpublished decision of the AAO. However, 
counsel does not indicate that the facts of the previous case are analogous to the instant case or provide 
any further information to support a finding that the AA07s previous decision (which was, in fact, not 
sustained but remanded for firther review by the director) has any relevance to the current case. 
Regardless, while 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(c) provides that AAO precedent decisions are binding on all 
USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
Each petition must be adjudicated on its own merits under the statutory and regulatory provisions 
that apply. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(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. Besides 
the unsupported assertion by counsel and the submission of an unpublished AAO decision, counsel here 
has not specifically addressed the director's stated reasons for denial, has not demonstrated any error on 
Page 3 
the part of the director and has not provided any additional evidence. The appeal must therefore be 
summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.