dismissed EB-1A Case: Cardiology

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
DA TE: JUl 2 5 2012 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Securitl 
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 
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. § I I 53(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 retumed 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 in 
accordance with the instructions on 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 ofthe decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~~ 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, on March 21, 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(bl(1 leA) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(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. 9 204.5(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. § 204.5(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 commercial success criterion 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 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). Finally, the director 
conducted a final merits determination in accordance with Kazarian v. USC/S, 596 F.3d 1115 
(9th Cir. 20 I 0) and determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate "a level of expertise 
indicating that you arc 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 that the evidence "does not establish sustained acclaim." 
See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Furthermore, the director 
found that the record lacked evidence of the petitioner's intent to continue working in his area of 
expertise. 
On appeal, counsel claimed in part 3 on Form 1-2908, Notice of Appeal or Motion: 
The record reflects through leading roles at prominent medical 
institutions along with his history of original presentation and significant 
contributions to the tield of hematology and oncology that has 
demonstrated that his abilities are extraordinary as he has demonstrated that he 
has met at least three of the enumerated criteria and demonstrated sustained 
national and acclaim placing him at the top of his field." 
In the accompanying letter, counsel generally repeats previous claims, without explaining why the 
AAO should find those claims any more persuasive than the director did. Counsel did not provide 
, 
Page 3 
any additional evidence or offer any additional arguments identifying any errors of law or fact in the 
director's analysis. See Desravines v. United States Attorney Gen., No. 08-14861. 343 F. App 'x 433. 
435 (11th Cir. 200lJ) (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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) provides that "[a1n otlicer 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 identitied 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 offers 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 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.