dismissed EB-1A Case: Cardiologist

(b)(6)
DATE: OCT 0 1 2013 
INRE: Petition er: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citi zenship and Immigration Services 
Administr ati ve Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. , N.W ., M S 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)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ; 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructi ons of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen , respectiv ely. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision . Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:// www.uscis .gov/fot·ms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requir·ements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5 . Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
~~"~ 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief , Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director , Texas 
Service Center, on April 15, 2013, 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)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in the sciences as a cardiologist. Congress set a very high 
benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute that the petitioner 
demonstrate "s ustained national or international acclaim" and present "extensive documentation " 
of his or her 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 sust ained 
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 deficiencies in the submitted 
evidence and determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for the membership 
criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(ii), 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), the leading or critical role criterion 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) and the high salary criterion pursuant to 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). The director did find that the petitioner satisfied the 
judging criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and the authorship of 
scholarly articles criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Part 3 of Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion allows for "a statement explaining any 
erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the decision being appealed." Part 3 was completed as 
follows: 
We respectfully assert that, in addition to the judge [of] the work of others and 
authorship categories, that the record reflects that Dr. has satisfied 
the original contributions category, based on significant research and the opinions 
of lead experts in the field from different parts of the country. 
In the accompanying letter, counsel makes general assertions without explaining how the 
conclusions of the director were incorrect as a matter of law or statement of fact. A passing 
reference without substantive arguments is insufficient to raise that ground on appeal. See 
Desravines v. United States Attorney Gen., No. 08-14861, 343 F. App'x 433 , 435 (11th Cir. 2009) 
(finding that issues not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned). Counsel does not specifically 
challenge any of the director's findings or point to specific errors in the director's analyses of the 
documentary evidence submitted for the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
On the Form I-290B, Part 2 indicated that a brief and/or evidence would be submitted to the AAO 
within 30 days. The appeal was filed on May 14, 2013. As of this date, more than four months later, 
the AAO has received nothingfurther. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(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 matter, counsel has not 
identified an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in the director's decision as a proper 
basis for the appeal. Counsel offers no argument that demonstrates error on the part of the director 
based upon the record that was before him and includes no additional evidence. 
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. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here , that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.