dismissed
EB-1A
dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics
Decision Summary
The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner failed to specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the director's original decision. Counsel indicated a supporting brief would be submitted within 30 days, but after more than seventeen months, nothing further was received by the AAO.
Criteria Discussed
Sustained National Or International Acclaim Top Of Field Of Endeavor Categories Of Evidence At 8 C.F.R. §204.5(H)(3)
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
identifyingdatadeletedto peeventclearlyunwarranteo invaséanofpersonalprivacy PUBUCCOPy U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices AdministrativeAppealsOMce(AAO) 20MassachusettsAve..N.W..MS2090 Washington,DC 20529-2090 U.S.Citizenship andImmigration Services DATE: APR 1 9 2012 Office: TEXASSERVICECENTER FILE: IN RE: Petitioner: Beneficiary: PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien WorkerasanAlien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto Section203(b)(1)(A)oftheImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A) ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER: INSTRUCTIONS: Enclosedpleasefind the decisionof the AdministrativeAppealsOffice in your case. All of the documentsrelatedtothismatterhavebeenreturnedtotheofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Please beadvisedthatanyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadetothatoffice. If youbelievethelawwasinappropriatelyappliedbyusin reachingourdecision,or youhaveadditional informationthatyou wish to haveconsidered,you mayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopen. Thespecificrequirementsfor filing sucharequestcanbefoundat8C.F.R.§ 103.5.All motionsmustbe submittedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcaseby filing a FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,with afeeof $630.Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthatanymotionmust befiledwithin30daysofthedecisionthatthemotionseekstoreconsiderorreopen. Thankyou, PerryRhew Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice www.users.gov Page2 DISCUSSION:Theemployment-basedimmigrantvisapetitionwasdeniedbytheDirector,Texas ServiceCenter,andis nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) onappeal.Theappeal will 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 in athletics. The directordeterminedthat the petitionerhadnot establishedthe requisiteextraordinaryability through extensivedocumentationand sustained nationalorinternationalacclaim.Thedirector'sdecisionsufficientlydiscussedthedeficienciesin the petitioner'sdocumentaryevidenceas it relatedto the categoriesof evidenceat 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)and found that the petitioner had failed to establishsustainednational or internationalacclaimandthatshewasamongthatsmallpercentageattheverytopof herfield of endeavor.8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2). Onappeal,counselstates:"Thedecisionwasmadeagainsttheweightof theevidence.Decision was arbitraryand capricious. MORE INFORMATIONTO BE PROVIDEDIN SUPPORT BRIEFTHAT WILL BE SUBMITTEDIN 30DAYS." Counsel'scommentsdo not specificallychallengeany of the director'sfindingsor point to specific errors in the director's analysesof the documentaryevidencesubmittedfor the categoriesof evidenceat 8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3). Further,counseldoesnot explainhow the documentaryevidencesubmittedby the petitionersupportsa finding of eligibility. The regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.3(a)(1)(v)providesthat"[a]n officerto whomanappealis taken shallsummarilydismissanyappealwhenthepartyconcernedfails to identify specificallyany erroneousconclusionof law or statementof factfor theappeal."In thismatter,thepetitionerhas not identifiedasa properbasisfor the appealan erroneousconclusionof law or a statementof factin thedirector'sdecision.Thepetitioner'sappellatesubmissionassertsthatthedecisionwas arbitrary,capricious,and"madeagainsttheweightof theevidence,"butdoesnot specifywhere the allegederroron the part of the directoroccurred.Moreover,the appellatesubmissionwas unaccompaniedby argumentsor evidenceaddressingthe regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)whichthepetitionerclaimsto meet. Counselindicatedthatabriefand/orevidencewouldbesubmittedtotheAAOwithin30days.The appealwasfiled on October18,2010. As of this date,morethan seventeenmonthslater,the AAO hasreceivednothingfurther. As statedin 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v),an appealshall be summarilydismissedif the party concernedfails to identify specificallyanyerroneousconclusionof law or statementof fact for theappeal.Thepetitionerhasnotspecificallyaddressedthereasonsstatedfor denialandhasnot providedanyadditionalevidencepertainingto hereligibility for theclassificationsought.The appealmustthereforebesummarilydismissed. ORDER: Theappealis dismissed.
Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial
MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.
Avoid This in My Petition →No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.