dismissed EB-1A Case: Atmospheric Chemistry

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranteo 
invasion of personal privac) 
PUBLIC COpy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
NOV 1 7 2010 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
APPLICA TION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. 
§ I I 53(b)(I)(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 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion. 
The fee for a Form I-290B is currently $585, but will increase to $630 on November 23, 2010. Any appeal or 
motion filed on or after November 23,2010 must be filed with the $630 fee. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. 
§ I 03.5(a)( I )(i) requires that any motion must be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to 
reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
AOeari(lClu 
(l Perry Rhew 
r Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
: . 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
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)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the requisite 
extraordinary ability through extensive documentation and sustained national or international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement, 
specifically a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). 
The petitioner must submit qualifYing evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On March 26, 2009, the petitioner submitted a Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, a 
statement and additional evidence. On March 28, 2009, the director issued a notice of intent to deny 
(NOID). On June 30, 2009, the petitioner filed a response to the NOID. After a thorough discussion of 
the evidence and the 10 regulatory criteria, the director denied the petition on July 20, 2009. The 
petitioner submitted a timely Form 1-2908, Notice of Appeal or Motion on August 18, 2009. On 
Part 2 of the Form 1-2908, the petitioner stated that he would submit a brief or additional evidence 
within 30 days. In his brief on appeal, the petitioner requested an additional 6 months to submit 
evidence in support of his appeal. As of this date, the AAO has not received any additional evidence 
from counsel or the petitioner. Therefore, the record is considered complete as it now stands. For the 
reasons discussed below, we uphold the director's decision and summarily dismiss the appeal. 
On the Form 1-2908, the petitioner fails to specify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact 
on the part of the director in denying the petition. Although the petitioner submitted a brief, he failed 
to adequately address the director's conclusions. In his statement on appeal, the petitioner refers to 
evidence already in the record of proceeding but does not provide any argument challenging the 
director's findings or statement to demonstrate error on the part of the director. The petitioner states 
that he would like to prove his eligibility by presenting more evidence of his work. The petitioner listed 
his work for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the development of a new 
approach in the field of atmospheric chemistry for the calculation of isoprene gas emission, the 
development of a technique for computing biogenic emission from plants, his presentations, his 
writings, his mentoring of Ph.D. students at Purdue University, and his nomination for the_ 
A ward. The petitioner's generalized reiteration of his work and conclusory 
statements fail to specifY the particular details contested. Moreover, the petitioner provides no 
discussion regarding what criteria his additional evidence purportedly meets. The letter written by. 
_Ph.D. on appeal is essentially the same as Dr. _ letter in the record of . dated 
~. The petitioner also submitted a copy of a nomination letter for the 
_Award written by_ and dated July 10,2009. The record contains a letter 
Page 3 
written by Dr. _ on December 10, 2008 and Dr. _ letter on appeal provides no new 
information. Further, Dr. July 10,2009 nomination letter, the petitioner's nomination for the 
Award, the petitioner's membership in the International Association of 
Hydrological Sciences (IAHS), and the petitioner's May 2009 presentation cannot be considered 
because they took place after the petitioner filed the Form 1-140. A petitioner must establish eligibility 
for the benefit he is seeking at the time that the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. §§103.2(b)(l),(l2); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Commr. 1971). A petition cannot be approved at a 
future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Jzummi, 22 I&N 
Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r. 1998). A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an 
effort to make a deficient petition conform to U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) 
requirements. Jd. at 176. In addition, the petitioner listed information already in the record of 
proceeding. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part: 
An 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 visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely 
with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to 
identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in this proceeding, the 
petitioner has not sustained that burden. Therefore, the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.