dismissed EB-1A Case: Cardiology

~,:::!entifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unw Invasion ofp atranted ersonaJ privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: SEP 2 9 2011 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: 
U.S. I>epartment of Homeland Security 
ll.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Offiee (AI\O) 
20 Ma,sachusett~ Ave., N.W .. MS 20<)0 
Washingtol1. DC 2052'J-2()'JO 
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 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
.))fJW()tL 
f Perry Rhew 
--t-' 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 (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. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established the requisite extraordinary ability through extensive documentation and sustained 
national or international acclaim. The director's decision sufficiently discussed the deficiencies in 
the petitioner's documentary evidence as it related to the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) and found that the petitioner had failed to establish sustained national or 
international acclaim and that he was among that small percentage at the very top of his field of 
endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
On appeal, counsel states: 
In Kazarian v. USCIS, ---F.3d.---, 1010 [sic] WL 725317 (C.A.9(CAL)), the Ninth Court 
of Appeals found that the USCIS relied "on an improper understanding" of the regulatory 
requirements in denying an EB-1 petition for a worker of extraordinary ability, and that 
the USCIS many not "unilaterally impose novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5.["] The record reveals that the self-petitioner 
has met at least three of the enumerated categories and that, as a clinician, his 
achievements are such that he ranks in the top percentage of cardiologists in his field who 
has [sic] achieved sustained national or international acclaim for his work. 
Counsel's comments do 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 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, the petitioner 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. The petitioner's 
appellate submission offers only a general statement that does not demonstrate where the alleged 
error on the part of the director occurred. Moreover, the appellate submission was unaccompanied 
by arguments or evidence addressing the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) which the 
petitioner claims to meet. 
Counsel indicated that the petitioner would not be submitting a supplemental brief and/or evidence 
in support of his appeal. As stated in 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(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. The petitioner has not specifically addressed the reasons stated 
for denial and has not provided any additional evidence pertaining to the classification sought. 
The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
Page 3 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.