dismissed EB-1A Case: Cycling Coach

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarr~ted 
invasion of personal pnvacy 
PUBLlCCOPY 
DATE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Securit) 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (1\.1\.0) 
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. § 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 in 
accordance with the instructions on Form 1-2')0B. 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, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief. Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, on September 17, 2011, and is now before the Administrative Appeals 
Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be sll'nmarily 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. § I I 53(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in athletics as a coach, more specifically a cycling coach. 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)(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 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 
under a single regulatory category of evidence. The director then conducted a final merits 
determination in accordance with Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0) and 
determined that the petitioner "ha( s J not reached a level of expertise indicating that you are one 
of that small percentage who has risen to the top of your 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). 
On appeal, counsel repeated sections of the director's decision and claimed in part 3 on Form 1-
290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion: 
The Petitioner will demonstrate that his coaching and his recognition by the 
appropriate experts are present. Further he will prove that he played a leading or 
critical role for an organization or establishment of distinguished reputation. This 
will be shown by the preponderance of evidence that he is qualified for the benefit 
sought consistent with the Matter of E-M-, 20 I & N. Dec. 77 (BIA 1989). The 
Petitioner respectfully requests that the Service reverse the denial of the 1-140 
petition. 
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 offer any 
additional arguments identifying any errors of law or fact in the director's analysis. See Desravines v. 
United Stales Attorney Gen., No. 08-14861, 343 F. App'x 433, 435 (11 th 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 
Page 3 
submitted for the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3). The AAO notes that the petitioner 
submitted three "Professional Certificates & Recommendations" without certified translations on 
appeal. As the translations did not comply with the terms of 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(3), they cannot be 
considered here. 
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 identity 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 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 him and the 
additional evidence is of no evidentiary value. 
As counsel did not contest any of the specific findings of the director and offers no substantive 
basis for the filing ofthe appeal, the regulations mandate the summary dismissal ofthe appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.