dismissed EB-1A Case: Boxer

, .. 
identifying data deleted to 
pevent clearly unwarranted 
in~ of pmonal priV8C) 
PUBLIC COPY 
DATE: APR 1 9 2012 OFFICE: TEXAS 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 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; 8 U.S.C. § 1153(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)(l)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you,' 
'<10[, 
;, 
PerryRhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
; '. 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, on July 22, 2011, 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. § 1153(b)(1)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability as a boxer. Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of 
extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute that the petitioner demonstrate "sustained 
national or international acclaim" and present "extensive documentation" of his or her 
achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(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 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. 
In the director's decision, the director thoroughly discussed the documentary evidence submitted 
by the petitioner and determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for the awards 
criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the published material criterion 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the original contributions criterion 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), and the high salary criterion pursuant to 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). Moreover, the director found that the petitioner 
failed to submit any documentary evidence regarding any of the other regulatory categories of 
evidence pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Finally, the director conducted a 
final merits determination in accordance with Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
and determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a (1) "level of expertise indicating that 
the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of 
endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." See 
section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, counsel claimed in part 3 on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion: 
USCIS has made erroneous conclusion that the applicant has not met at least three 
of the ten criteria found at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3). USCIS has made erroneous 
conclusion that the applicant has not reached a level of expertise indicating that he 
is one of that small percentage who had risen to the top of the field of endeavor. 
USCIS has made erroneous conclusion that the applicant's achievements do not 
set him significantly above almost all others in the field at a national or 
international level and does not establish sustained acclaim. USCIS has made 
erroneous conclusion that the applicant is not an individual of extraordinary 
ability. 
, . 
Page 3 
Rather than challenging any of the director's specific findings, counsel generally alleges that the 
director made erroneous conclusions. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § l03.3(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 case, counsel 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. Instead, counsel makes 
general assertions without specifically identifying any erroneous conclusion of law or statement 
of fact for the appeal. Again, counsel offers no argument that demonstrates error on the part of 
the director based upon the record that was before her. 
As stated in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § l03.3(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. As counsel did not contest any of the specific findings of the director and 
offers no substantive basis for the filing of the appeal, the regulations mandate the summary 
dismissal of the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.