dismissed EB-1A Case: Bricklaying

DATE: 
NOV 0 3 201l 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenshir antllmmigration Services 
Administrative Apreals Office (AAO) 
20 Mas:-dchusell:-Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20.'i29-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)( I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
EnclDsed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All Df the documents 
related tD this matter have heen returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please he advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made tD that office. 
If you helieve the law was inappropriately applied hy 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. ThL: 
specific requirements for filing such a request can he found at R C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must he 
suhmitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-2908, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee Df $630. Plcase be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must he filed 
within JO days or the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
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 on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner, on his visa petition, indicated that he seeks classitication as an "alien of extraordinary 
ahility" pursuant to section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. 
~ 1153(b)(l)(A). The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or 
international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
director, in the request for evidence (RFE), noted that the petitioner provided no evidence in support of 
his visa petition. In response to the director's RFE. petitioner submitted a statement indicating that in 
Part 2 of the Form 1-140. it should be rel1ected that he chooses to petition as "g. Any other worker 
(requiring less than two years of training or experience," instead of ·'a. An alien of extraordinary 
ability." Along with the statement attempting to clarify the category marked on the Forn1 1-140, the 
petitioner submitted three letters of support that state that the petitioner is a good brick layer. The 
record does not contain an ETA Form 9089 Alien Employment Certification approved by the 
Department of Labor as required for workers requiring less than two years of training or experience. 
Section 203(b )(3)(C) of the Act. 
In the director's decision, the director determined that because the petitioner failed to submit any 
evidence under the regulatory criteria outlined in 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), the petitioner failed to 
establish he is an alien of extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Inasmuch as the 
petitioner indicatcd that the filing category rel1ected on the visa petition was erroneous, the director 
concluded that consistent with Matter of lzllmmi, 21 I&N Dec. 169 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). and Matter 
oj'Katighak, 141&N Dec. 45. 49 (Reg' I Comm'r 1971), a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time 
of filing and thereby is precluded from making material changes to a petition that has already been filed 
in an effort to make an apparently deficient petition conform to US CIS requirements. 
On appeal, the petitioner states that he is going to apply for benefits under section 245 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C § 1255, and essentially maintains that he is submitting all requested evidence. The petitioner 
submits all the documents he previously submitted in his RFE response and submits for the first time 
his birth certiticate. marriage certificate. his children's birth certificates, children's social security cards. 
school records, tax documents, decd to his home, and several identity cards for him or his wife issued 
by various government entities. The statutory provision that the petitioner identifies on appeal does not 
correspond to the filing category identified on his visa petition. The documents that the petitioner 
suhmits for the first time on appeal are not probative or relevant in substantiating a claim of 
extraordinary ability. Critically, the petitioner has failed to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or 
fact in the director's decision disallowing the change in the visa petition category and ultimate finding 
that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for the benefit sought. As stated in 8 CF.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(1 lev), 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. The petitioner has not 
specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided probative evidence. The 
appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
Page 3 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.