dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
i LS.( itizenshipandImmigrationServices
identifying data deleted to Adminiswiw weals oMee (AAo)
'O MassachusettsAve..N.W- MS2090
preventclearlyunwarranted ám=wx 20m2090
invasionofpersonalprivacy U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
p y Services
DATE: Office: TEXASSERVICECENTER FILE:
DECe5 W
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien Workerasan Alien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ON BEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decisionof the AdministrativeAppealsOffice in your case. All of the
documentsrelatedtothismatterhavebeenreturnedtotheofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Please
beadvisedthatanyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadetothatoffice.
If youbelievethelawwasinappropriatelyappliedby usin reachingourdecision,or youhaveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopen.
Thespeciñcrequirementsfor filing sucharequestcanbefoundat 8C.F.R.§ 103.5.All motionsmustbe
submittedto theoffice thatoriginallydecidedyour caseby filing a FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor
Motion, with a feeof $630. Pleasebeawarethat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthatanymotionmust
be filed within 30 daysof the decisionthat the motion seeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION:Theemployment-basedimmigrantvisapetitionwasdeniedby theDirector,Texas
ServiceCenter,andis nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) onappeal.Theappeal
will besummarilydismissed.
Thepetitioneris a real estatecompany. It seeksto classifythe beneficiaryasanemployment-
basedimmigrantpursuantto section203(b)(1)(A)of the ImmigrationandNationalityAct (the
Act), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A),as an alien of extraordinaryability in business.Thedirector
determinedthatthepetitionerhadnot establishedthe beneficiary'srequisiteextraordinaryability
throughextensivedocumentationandsustainednationalor internationalacclaim. Thedirector's
decisionsufficientlydiscussedthe deficienciesin the documentaryevidenceasit relatedto the
categoriesof evidenceat 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3) and found that the petitioner had failed to
establishthebeneficiary'ssustainednationalor internationalacclaim.
Onappeal,counselstates:
Incorrect analysisof evidencesubmitted,the Beneficiary qualifies as an Alien of
extraordinaryability as proven in submitteddocumentation. The Beneficiary has
receivedtwo ArgentineNationalAwards,sheis amemberof severalassociationssuchas
NationalAssociationof Realtors,FloridaAssociationof Realtors,RealtorAssociationof
Miami-DadeCounty,RealtorAssociationof GreaterMiami andthe Beaches,Stanford
Who's Who,ArgentineSocietyof HorticultureandFundacionManosdel Sur. Further
beneficiaryhaspublishedseveralarticles,shewasa Judgein First InternationalContest
of New Roseswhile working as Director of Institutional Public Relations. The
Beneficiaryperformeda critical role in the Argentinesocietyof Horticulture,andwas
recognizedinternationally. Her effortsallowedher to recoverextensivegreenareasin
Argentina,suchasparks,plazasetc. Shepublishedthe "RoseGardenBooklet" which
was a vehicle to reach, from "Public Relations"perspective,to other national and
international institutions, such as Aguas Argentinas, Metro-Gas, Yaciminentos
PetroliferosFiscales(YPF), Stateof Nebraska,British Government,TheRoyalBotanic
GardensKEW of London,etc. Shewasalsoreceivedduringher work in City Hall in
BuenosAims, Argentinathe highestsalaryallowed. Theabovementionedevidenceis
evidencethat the beneficiary's level of expertiseindicatesthat she is at the top of her
field of endeavorand has received national and international recognition. Supporting
documentsandbrief will besubmittedin thirty days.
Counsel'scommentsdo not specificallychallengeany of the director's fmdingsor point to
specific errors in the director's analysesof the documentaryevidencesubmittedfor the
categoriesof evidenceat 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3). The regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v)
providesthat"[a]n officer to whomanappealis takenshallsummarilydismissanyappealwhen
thepartyconcernedfails to identify specificallyanyerroneousconclusionof law or statementof
fact for theappeaL" On appeal,thepetitionerhasnot identifiedasa properbasisfor theappeal
an erroneousconclusionof law or an incorrectstatementof fact in the director's decision.
Instead,counselbriefly summarizesthebeneficiary'scareerachievementsandrepeatstheclaims
made initially and in responseto the director's requestfor evidencewithout specifically
identifyingwheretheallegederroronthepartof thedirectoroccurred.Thepetitioner'sappellate
Page3
submissionoffersno argumentthatdemonstrateserroron thepartof thedirectorbaseduponthe
recordthat was beforehim. Moreover,the appellatesubmissionwas unaccompaniedby any
furtherdocumentaryevidencein supportof the categoriesof evidenceat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)
whichthepetitionerclaimsto meet.
Counselindicatedthatabriefand/orevidencewouldbesubmittedtotheAAO within30days.The
appealwasfiled on May 19,2010. As of this date,morethaneighteenmonthslater,the AAO
hasreceivednothingfurther.
As statedin 8 C.F.R.§ 103.3(a)(1)(v),an appealshallbe summarilydismissedif the party
concernedfails to identify specificallyanyerroneousconclusionof law or statementof fact for
theappeal.Thepetitionerhasnot specificallyaddressedthereasonsstatedfor denialandhasnot
provided any additionalevidencepertainingto the classificationsought. The appealmust
thereforebesummarilydismissed.
ORDER: Theappealis dismissed.