dismissed EB-1A Case: Gastrointestinal Oncology

(b)(6)
·~·-·-' 
DATE: 
JAN 2 5 20\3. 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
. Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
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 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant t9. 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 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 ~o.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 1-2908, 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 tile any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
r;#-(iL 
~ 
Ron R_osenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office . 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denieq by the Director, Texas 
Service Center.. The director reaffirmed that decision on motion. The matter is now before the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The ·petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability. The director determined that the petitioner had not establi.shed the requisite 
extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive documentation of his sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
On appeal, counsel indicated that the petitioner would submit a brief and/or evidence to the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) within 30 days. Counsel dated the appeal April 23, 2012. As of 
this date, approximately nine months later, the AAO has received nothing further. 
On appeal, the petitioner's counsel only addresses two of the stated reasons for the denial. Counsel 
failed to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact on the part of the director. 
Instead, regarding the awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), counsel merely states: "The 
applicant received several prestigious awards which were clearly internationally recognized awards, 
yet these were minimized by the District Director." Counsel did not specify what evidence the 
director either overlooked or disregarded in his adverse decision on the petitioner's motion. Within 
the director's most recent decision, the director acknowledged. the awards relating to. the 
International Congress on Gastrointestinal Oncology. The director . conceded that such awards 
satisfied a portion of the regulatory requirements of the awards criterion, but that the petitioner had 
not complied with the regulatory requirement that the awards be nationally or internationally 
recognized. The petitioner failed to suffiCiently address this element on appeal; counsel merely 
asserts that these awards "were clearly internationally recognized awards." The unsupported 
assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence.~ Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 
(BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 
I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). The unsupported assertions of counsel in a brief are not evidence 
and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight. See INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 188-89 n.6 
(1984). As such, the petitioner has not specifically identified any erroneous conclusion of law or 
statement of fact for the appeal. 
Counsel also alluded to the contributions of major significance criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Regarding this criterion, counsel states: "[T]he applicant is the co-author of one textbook which is 
relied upon by other scientists in the field and has also contributed the chapter towards a very 
· prominent scientific textbook and research text, which is similarly util~zed by research scientists in 
the same field of endeavor." The director did not refute either of these claims. Instead, the director 
concluded that the petitioner had not established the significance of these accomplishments. 
Consequently, the petitioner has not identified an error by the director. 
As stated in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the 
concerned party fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for 
the appeal. . Cf ldy v. Holder, 674 F.3d 111 (1st ·Cir. 2012) (where an alien fails to raise any legal 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
issue regarding the Board of Immigration Appeals denial of an inadmissibility waiver, the Court of· 
Appeals is deprived of jurisdiction). See also Desravines v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 343 F .. App'x 433, 435 
(11th Cir. 2009) {finding 
that issues not briefed on appeal are deemed .abandoned)i Tedder v. F.M. C. 
Corp., 590 F.2d 115, 117 (5th Cir. 1979) (deeming abandoned an issue raised in the statement of 
issues but not anywhere else in the brief). In this instance, the petitioner has not identified a basis 
for the appeal. The petitioner does not contest the director's findings and offers no substantive basis 
for the filing of the appeal. . As the petitioner failed to provide any specific statement or argument 
regarding the basis of his appeal, the appeal must be summarily dismissed.· 
ORDER: The appeal. is' dismissed.