dismissed EB-1A Case: Biomedical Research

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave.. N.W.. Rm. A3042 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent dearly unwmW 
invasion of ~HWW prkaq 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: EAC 03 069 50570 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: AUO 2 (j 2005 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. fj 1153(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. 
,+Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 03 069 50570 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the 
sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The applicable regulation defines the statutory term "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating 
that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained 
national or international acclaim" that the statute requires. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). An alien can establish 
sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
international recognized award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained 
acclaim by meeting at least three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. However, the weight given to evidence 
submitted to fulfill the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3), or comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(4), must depend on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. A lower 
evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a 
level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
In this case, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in the sciences as a 
biomedical researcher and physician. The record indicates that the petitioner is currently employed in China as 
Director of the Shanxi Provincial Institute of Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Diseases and Dean of the 
Institute's affiliated hospital. The petitioner is also Chief Scientist for the Shanxi De-Tong 
Medical/PharmaceuticaI Technology Company. The petitioner submitted supporting documents including 
EAC 03 069 50570 
Page 3 
verification of his employment, salary, awards, evidence of his publications and the citation of his articles, 
media reports purportedly about the petitioner, and seven letters of recommendation. The director found the 
record did not establish that the petitioner had achieved the requisite sustained acclaim. On appeal, counsel 
submits a brief, two additional certificates attesting to the petitioner's professional standing and employment 
and resubmits documentation of one award that was included with the petition. Counsel's claims and the 
additional evidence submitted on appeal do not overcome the deficiency of the petition and the appeal will be 
dismissed. We address counsel's claims and the evidence submitted in the following discussion of the 
regulatory criteria relevant to the petitioner's case. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a letter dated May 19, 2002 from Liu Su Liang, Editor in Chief of Golden Spring 
magazine in China. Editor Liang states that the petitioner was "selected as the only awardee in the field of 
integration of Chinese Medicine and Western Medicine" within the designation of China's 100 Most 
Outstanding Doctors as "jointly selected by Ministry of Health, China, National Veteran Bureau and Golden 
Spring Magazine." Editor Liang explains that "[tlhis is nationally highest award" which "represents the highest 
medical levels in China." Editor Liang does not state when the petitioner received this award, although the 
petitioner's curriculum vitae indicates that the award was granted in 1999. 
The English translation of Editor Liang's letter is incomplete and does not comply with the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(3) which requires that all documents in a foreign language submitted as evidence to 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) must be "accompanied by a full English language translation which 
the translator has certified as complete and accurate." Although the submitted English translation of Editor 
Liang's letter is accompanied by a certificate from the translator attesting that the translation "is accurate to the 
best of [his] knowledge," the English translation leaves out significant portions of the original letter in Chinese, 
including the requirements and eligibility criteria for awardees. Even if properly translated, this award would 
not meet this criterion because it was apparently granted in 1999, at least four years before this petition was 
filed, and thus does not reflect the requisite sustained acclaim. 
The petitioner also submitted an award certificate issued to the petitioner on January 6, 2000 by the Chinese 
Association of Integration of Chinese and Western Medicine, which affirms that the petitioner was "the 
recipient of Outstanding Contribution Award (1 995- 1999) for his distinguished research contribution.'' A letter 
dated June 13, 2002 fromecretary General of the Association, explains that this award is "the 
highest honor" granted by the Association to scientists who have made major discoveries or inventions, whose 
work has made a substantial impact, who have "established leading status," and who have made contributions to 
the Association. Secretary Wei states that the award is issued "once every five years with only 10 awardees out 
of 1.5 million applicants nationwide." Even if this award is a nationally recognized honor in the petitioner's 
field, it was awarded in 2000, four years before the petition was filed, and does not reflect the requisite sustained 
acclaim. 
The petitioner's curriculum vitae states that he won the "Third Prize of the Health Ministry Science and 
Technology" in 1991 and 1994. The record contains what appears to be an English translation of a document 
entitled "Background Information of Award Advancement in Science & Technology" purportedly written by 
yirector of Technological Research at the Founh Medicial University in China. Yet the record does 
not contain the original document in Chinese. In addition, the petitioner submitted no primary evidence of his 
EAC 03 069 50570 
Page 4 
receipt of this award in either 1991 or 1994. Even if sufficiently documented, these awards would only evidence 
the petitioner's past renown 12 and 10 years prior to filing this petition. The,petitioner also submitted a list of 
five other "Honors" which he purportedly received between 1992 and 1999, but the record contains no 
corroborative evidence of these achievements. Simply going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 1 90 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(ii) Documentation of the alien S membership in associations in the field for which clmsijication is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or intt?rnational 
experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The petitioner's curriculum vitae states that he is a member of four medical and scientific associations, but the 
record only documents his membership in one of these associations, the Chinese Association of the Integration 
of Traditional and Western Medicine. As discussed above under the first criterion, the petitioner received an 
award from this association in 2000. Yet the record contains no evidence that such awards or other outstanding 
achievements are prerequisite to membership in the association. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this 
criterion. 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien's work in thejeM for which classljcation is sought. Such evidence shall irzclude the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
On page four of his initial brief, counsel listed 10 media reports about the petitioner, but the record only partially 
documents five newspaper articles purportedly about the petitioner. The record contains five Chinese 
newspaper articles, four of which appear to be feature articles about the petitioner. However, the articles were 
submitted with incomplete English translations that do not comply with 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). For e.xample, a 
full-page feature article about the petitioner published in the December 11, 1998 edition of China Youth was 
submitted with an English translation of the article's title and just one sentence of its text. The translation also 
does not identity the author of the article as required by this regulatory criterion. Without complete anti certified 
translations of these articles, we cannot determine if they support the petitioner's eligibility under this criterion. 
See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). In addition, the record contains no documentation that the submitted articles were 
published in nationally circulated newspapers in China or other evidence that the newspapers are professional, 
major trade publications or other major media. 
On appeal, counsel claims that "[wle have submitted substantial professional trade publications and many major 
media [sic] featuring the petitioner's achievements, which demonstrates a widespread interest in or reliance eon 
[sic] his work." As discussed above, the record does not support this claim. 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 (BIA 1988); 
Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 
1980). Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others 
in the same or an alliedfield of specijication for which classiJication is sought. 
EAC 03 069 50570 
Page 5 
The petitioner submitted evidence that he was a member of the editorial boards of the "Academic Journal of the 
4" Military Medical University" in 1993 and for the Journal of Shanxi Chinese Medicine Research from 2001 to 
2003. The petitioner's editorial position for the former journal was held ten years prior to the filing of this 
petition and is inconsistent with the requisite sustained acclaim. Although his editorial work for. the latter 
journal is more recent, the petitioner submitted no evidence that the Journal of Shanxi Chinese Medicine 
Research is a prestigious medical journal that is nationally circulated in China or other evidence that the 
petitioner's editorial role was consistent with national acclaim. 
The record also contains a certificate issued in June 1996 stating that the petitioner "is invited to serve as a 
member of editorial board for Who's Who in Contemporary Chinese Medicine, co-edited by Technology and 
Information Newspaper and Editorial Board of Who's Who in Contemporary Chinese Medicine." This 
certificate only evidences the petitioner's invitation to serve, not his actual service, as an editor for this 
publication. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a certificate dated November 2, 1995 from the "Combined Headquarter of 
Supplies People's Liberty Army" stating that he is "invited to serve as Member of Evaluation Committee for 
Licensing Department of High-Level Health Professionals." Again, this document only verifies the petitioner's 
invitation to evaluate - not his actual evaluation of - other health professionals. 
On page four of his initial brief, counsel claims the petitioner meets this criterion through his work as Professor 
and Director of the Shanxi Provincial Institute of Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Diseases and as President 
of Xian De-Tong Hospital. Yet duties or activities which nominally fall under a given regulatory criterion at 8 
C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3) do not demonstrate national or international acclaim if they are inherent or routine in the 
occupation itself, or in a substantial proportion of positions within that occupation. The record verifies the 
petitioner's employment at the Institute and its affiliated hospital, but the petitioner submitted no evidence that 
his judgment of the work of students or other physicians was done in a manner significantly outside the general 
duties of his employment and reflective of national or international acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner does 
not meet this criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major signiJcance in the jield 
In his initial brief, counsel claims the petitioner "has made remarkable contributions in the prevention and 
treatment of cardiovascular diseases" as evidenced by his awards, his inclusion in "World Famous Doctors 
Dictionary" and "China Trans-Century Eminent Doctors," and his "authorship of 3 testbooks [sic] and over 32 
professional publications." The petitioner's awards were discussed above under the first criterion. None of the 
submitted evidence identifies the specific accomplishments of the petitioner for which he was honored. The 
record contains no documentation of the petitioner's inclusion in the "World Famous Doctors Dictionary" or 
"China Trans-Century Eminent Doctors." Again, 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. Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534; Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1; Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N 
Dec. at 506. 
Although counsel claims the petitioner has authored three books and 32 articles, the record documents the 
publication ofjust 16 articles co-authored by the petitioner and published in Chinese scientific journals between 
1988 and 1994. The petitioner is the lead author of 12 of these articles. The record contains printouts from the 
EAC 03 069 50570 
Page 6 
Institute for Scientific Information's Web of Science indicating that seven of the petitioner's articles have been 
cited between one and two times each. The record also contains a small book entitled "Medical Dialogue," of 
which the petitioner is the sole author, and an English translation of the book's title and the petitioner's name 
and position. None of the book's text or publication information is included in the submitted translation. 
Consequently, we cannot consider this book as evidence of the petitioner's eligibility under this criterion. See 8 
C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). 
As further evidence of his contributions, the petitioner submitted recommendation letters from seven scientists 
in his field or related specialties. While such letters provide relevant information about an alien's experience 
and accomplishments, they cannot by themselves establish the alien's eligibility under this criterion because 
they do not demonstrate that the alien's work is of major significance in his field beyond the limited number of 
individuals with whom he has worked directly. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by 
an alien in support of an immigration petition carry less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of major 
contributions that one would expect of an alien who has sustained national or international acclaim. 
Accordingly, we review th ther evidence of the petitioner's contributions. In addition, 
we note that the letters of ere submitted with what appear to be drafts with blanks for 
the authors to fill in. These drafts suggest that the text of the letters is not the authors' own and detracts from 
the probative value of these two letters. 
Irofessor and Chair of the Department of Biomedical Sciences at the College of Veterinary 
Medicine of Cornell University, explains that he became familiar with the petitioner's work during his recent 
visit to the United States. states that the petitioner's "works 'Effect of antiarhythmic drugs 
on electrophysiotogy and calclum, sodium potassium channel currents in myocardium' and his 'experimental - - - - 
study of myocardium ischemia and reperfusion injury with calcium channel blockers' have significantly 
enhanced our understanding of the mechanism of these diseases and can be considered as benchmarks in the 
field." The record does not identify which of the petitioner's publications might relate to the former work. The 
latter work is evidenced by a copy of an article entitled "The Experimental Study of Myocardial Reperfusion 
Injury with Calcium Channel Blocker," of which the petitioner is the lead author and that was published in 1991 
in Advances in Free Radical Biology and Medicine. Yet the record contains no evidence that this article has 
been cited by othCr researchers or otherwise recognized as a major contribution to the petitioner's field outside 
of Professor Kotikoff s own estimation. 
professor of Physiology at the University of Cologne in Germany, writes that from reading 
the petitioner's publication and observing his work in the biomedical field, he believes the petitioner "is a - 
phenomenal physician scientist." Professor Fleischm d accomplishments of the 
petitioner which are not documented by the record. Firs states that the petitioner has 
authored four books and published his work in the journal Advances in Cardiology. As discussed above, the 
record includes a copy of one book authored by the petitioner, but no documentation of its publication. The 
petitioner's curriculum vitae lists his authorship of an article purportedly published in Advances in Cardiology 
in 1990, but the record contains no copy of the article or other evidence of its publication. Second, Professor 
Fleischmann states that the petitioner's work has been featured in People's Daily and broadcast on China 
Central Television (CCTV). The record contains no evidence of such media reports. Finally, Professor 
Fleischmann states that the petitioner has been invited to collaborate on research with Cornell University and the 
University of Technology in Germany. Again, the record contains no evidence of these collaborations. Simply 
going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
EAC 03 069 50570 
Page 7 
~rofessor and Director of the Department of Intemal Medicine at the Fourth Medical University 
in Xian, China, also cites the undocumented reports about the petitioner by People's Daily and CCTV and his 
awards as evidence of the petitioner's "extraordinary achievements." Honge Yan, Professor of Cardiology and 
President of the College of Medicine at Xian Jiaotong University, explains that he has collaborated with the 
petitioner for more than ten years and also cites the petitioner's awards as evidence of his "outstanding national 
and international reputation." Yet neither Professor Fan nor Professor Yan identify any specific work of the 
petitioner that has been recognized as a major contribution to his field. 
Professor of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Sciences at the University of Georgia; C.H. 
fessor of Microbiology and Immunology at Emory University School of Medicine; J.P. Jin, 
Associate Professor of Physiology and Biophysics at Case Western University; and rofessor of 
Cardiovascular Diseases at the National Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine, all state that the petitioner 
developed new drugs for the treatment of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases. The record verifies that 
the petitioner is the chief scientist of the edicall~hannaceutical Technology Conlpany, but 
the petitioner submitted no evidence that he developed new drugs to treat cardiovascular or cerebrovascular 
diseases. Again, simply going on record without supporting document evidence is not sufficient to meet the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Soflci, 22 I&N Dec. at 16-lso notes that the 
petitioner's research "bridges traditional Chinese medicine with modem Western medicine for which there is 
still a large gap to be covered." Although the petitioner received an Outstanding Contribution Award from the 
Chinese Association of Integration of Chinese and Western Medicine, neither the evidence concerning that 
award nor Professor Yang's letter identify any specific work of the petitioner which has been recognized as a 
major contribution in this area. 
The record indicates that the petitioner has co-authored 16 articles published in Chinese scientific journals 
between 1988 and 1994, only seven of which have been minimally cited. The petitioner has been recognized as 
a leading physician in China in the field of the integration of Chinese and Western Medicine, as evidenced by 
his receipt of two awards presented in 1999 and 2000. The eight support letters cite accomplishments of the 
petitioner that are largely uncorroborated by the record. In sum, this evidence does not establish that the 
petitioner has made major contributions to his field in a manner consistent with the requisite sustained acclaim. 
Consequently, he does not meet this criterion. 
(vi) Evidence of the  alien'.^ authorship of scholarly articles in the $el4 in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
Frequent publication of research findings is inherent to success as an established scientist and does not 
necessarily indicate the sustained acclaim requisite to classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. 
Evidence of publications must be accompanied by documentation of consistent citation by independent experts 
or other proof that the alien's publications have had a significant impact in his field. In this case, as discussed 
above under the fifth criterion, the record documents the petitioner's co-authorship of 16 articles published in 
Chinese scientific journals between 1988 and 1994. The petitioner is the lead author of 12 of these articles. 
Seven of the petitioner's articles have been cited between one and two times each, although the record does not 
identify the citing articles or otherwise confirm that they do not include subsequent publications of the petitioner 
himself. The petitioner's most recent article was published in 1994, a decade prior to the filing of this petition. 
This publication and citation record does not reflect sustained acclaim and the petitioner consequelitly does not 
meet this criterion. 
EAC 03 069 50570 
Page 8 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
In his initial brief, counsel claims the petitioner meets this criterion through his role as Director for the 
Association of the Integration of Chinese and Western Medicine. Although the petitioner submitted evidence of 
his receipt of an award from this association, the record contains no evidence that he has served as the 
association's director. Counsel also claims that this association is the "only official, nationwide association of 
its kind" in China and is "highly reputable in its efforts and achievement." Again, the record contains no 
evidence to corroborate these assertions. 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. Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534; Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. I; Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. 
The record also does not establish that the petitioner meets this criterion through his other positions. A "Letter 
of Employment'' fro-hairman of the Committee of Academic Evaluation of the Shanxi 
Provincial Institute of Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Diseases, affirms that on January 10, 2001 the 
petitioner was appointed as Director of the Institute and Dean of its affiliated hospital for a five-year term. On 
appeal, the petitioner submits a copy of this certificate accompanied by a second, incomplete English translation 
that identifies the Institute as that of "Heart and Vascular Diseases" and includes an inaccurate transliteration of 
the Chairman's name. While the petitioner may perfofm a leading and critical role for the Institute and its 
hospital, the record contains no evidence that these establishments have distinguished reputations in China. 
The petitioner also submitted a "Certificate of Employment" signed byhairman of the Shanxi De- 
Tong Medical/Pharmaceutical Technology Company which is dated January 19, 2001 and affirms that the 
petitioner was hired as the company's chief scientist for a term of five years. The certificate does not describe 
the petitioner's responsibilities or accomplishments in his role as chief scientist and the record is devoid of any 
evidence that this company has a distinguished reputation in China. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet 
this criterion. 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signzJicantIy high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the$eld. 
The certificate from the Shanxi De-Tong MedicallPharmaceutica1 Technology Company states that the 
annual salary of one million Ren Min Bi (RMB). The record also contains a letter from 
Provincial Pharmaceutical Association, who states, "Researchers in 
Ordinary Ph.D. holders received $60.000 RMB/vr. Scientists with 
Ph.D degree and are in charge of a research program usually earn $100,000 RMBlyear. s is 
[sic] making 1,000,000 RMBIyr, which is the very highest nationwide that I know." Yet the record contains no - - 
documentation of the petitioner's income from the company over the course of his employment from 2001 
through December 2003 when his petition was filed. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1153(b)(l)(A), 
only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or 
international acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of his or her field. The evidence in 
this case indicates that the petitioner is an accomplished biomedical researcher and physician. However, the 
record does not establish that the petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim as a scientist 
EAC 03 069 50570 
Page 9 
placing him at the very top of his field. He is thus ineligible for classification as an alien with extraordinary 
ability pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(A), and his petition may not be 
approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. $ 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
miif'ying data deleted to 
mvent clearly unwarranW 
inv~jsion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
LIC COPY 
, d' 
FILE: EAC 03 139 52257 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 2 6 Zfigj 
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. 5 1153(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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 03 139 52257 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 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. 3 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On Form I-290B counsel stated, "The Government erred as a matter of fact and law" and indicated that he would 
submit a brief and/or additional evidence to the AAO within 30 days. Counsel dated the appeal December 17, 
2004. As of this date, over eight months later, the AAO has received nothing further from counsel. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. 3 103.3(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. Counsel here has not 
specifically identified any reason for the appeal and has not provided any additional evidence. The appeal must 
therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.