dismissed EB-1A Case: Cardiology

PUBLlCCOPY 
DATE: OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
JUN \ 5 1011 
IN RE: 
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 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worke( 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)(I)(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 AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen 
with the field office or service center that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of 
Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630, The specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 
8 c'F,R, § 103,5, Do not file any motion directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C,F,R, § 
103,5(a)(I)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to 
reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
itfEu ~ 
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, on March 23, 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)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § I I 53(b)(I)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in the sciences as a "Cardiology Fellow." 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. ~ ~·,'H.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 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 associations 
criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(ii), the judging criterion pursuant to 
the regulation at 8 C,F,R, § 204.5(h)(3)(ivl, th~ original contributions criterion pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.F,R. § 204,S(h)(3)(v), and the leading or critical role criterion pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.F,R, § 204.S(h)(3)(viii), The director did find that the petitioner satisfied the 
authorship of scholarly articles criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), Finally, the director 
conducted a final merits determination in accordance with Kazarian v, USCIS, 596 F.3d IllS 
(9th CiT. 20 I 0) and determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate "a level of expertise 
indicating that you are one of that small percentage who has risen to the top of their field of 
endeavor," 8 C.F,R, § 204,5(h)(2) and the petitioner'S contributions are not "consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim," See section 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C,F,R. 
§ 204,5(h)(3), 
On appeal, counsel claimed in part 3 on [<'orm I-2908, Notice of Appeal or Motion: 
The record reflects through _ leading roles at prominent medical 
institutions along with his hi~inal and pioneering ~s and 
significant contributions in the field of cardiology that _ has 
demonstrated that he satisfied at least three of the enumerated criteria and that he 
has received national and international acclaim, 
In a one page letter, counsel also references the petitioner's "memberships" and experience "judging 
the work of others." A passing reference without substantive arguments is insufficient to raise that 
ground on appeal. Desravines v, United Stote:: _"ltorney Gen" No, 08-14861, 343 F, App'x 433, 435 (11th 
CiT. 2009), 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), The regulation at 8 C,F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) provides that "[a]n 
Page 3 
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's appellate submission otfers only a 
general statement asserting that the petitioner qualifies as an alien of extraordinary ability. Counsel 
offers no argument that demonstrates error on the part of the director based upon the record that was 
before her. 
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.