dismissed EB-1A Case: Inventor

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privac}' 
pt1Bt TC COPy 
FILE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneticiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Securit) 
U.S. Citi/enship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Ortice (1\1\0) 
20 Massachusetls Ave .. N.W .. MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: JAN 1 9 2011 
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)( I )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. Ii 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
»OWi1cUJ r 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 2, 2007, 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. § I I 53(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability as an inventor. At the time of the original filing of the petition, the 
petitioner submitted documentation but failed to specifically identify the criteria under the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) he claimed to meet. It was not apparent from the review of the 
evidence to which criteria the evidence pertained. The burden is on the petitioner to establish his 
eligibility not on the director to infer or second-guess the intended criteria. As such, the director 
issued a request for additional evidence pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8) 
describing each of the ten criteria under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In response to 
the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted additional documentation but again 
failed to identify the intended criteria. Based on the petitioner's submitted documentation, the 
director determined in his decision 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 membership criterion 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the leading or critical role criterion 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), and the high salary criterion pursuant to 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
On appeal, the petitioner requested an oral argument "'in order to provide model of my inventions 
and discuss their benefit in changing the related industries and benefiting the public." The 
regulations provide that the requesting party must explain in writing why oral argument is 
necessary. Furthermore, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has the sole authority to 
grant or deny a request for oral argument and will grant argument only in cases involving unique 
factors or issues of law that cannot be adequately addressed in writing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(b). 
In this instance, the petitioner identified no unique factors or issues of law to be resolved. 
Moreover, the written record of proceedings fully represents the facts and issues in this matter. 
Consequently, the request for oral argument is denied. 
In addition, rather than challenging any of the director's specific findings, the petitioner stated: 
I am an Inventor from Iran. I have three ditTerent inventions, although apparently 
the in charge officer carelessly glanced at one of my inventions, the Air Filter. 
* * * 
My inventions have received national recognition. . .. These exhibits will satisfy 
the requirement of the Immigration. Whereas; the decision stated that I could not 
establish national or international recognition. 
* * * 
Page 3 
As a matter of fact, the soul of the law is in the hands of you people sitting there. 
The purpose of law is making justification between right and wrong. If the 
enclose[d] documents clearly indicates that my inventions are useful in this 
country and the world. and can be utilized in a better way in [the] United States, 
should all these things be ignored and just look for a high salary. Until I can mass 
product my inventions, no one knows about them in order to pay high salary or 
establishing the critical role in better living of the public and resulting in having 
many articles published, commercial success or receiving prizes and awards. 
The petitioner also submitted a partial translation for the bylaws of the Association of Inventors, 
a personal statement explaining his work that was previously submitted, and a letter to the 
Governor of Maryland offering his services. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § I03.3(a)(I)(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. Instead, the petitioner claims that he is eligible as an alien of 
extraordinary ability because his "inventions are useful for this country" and "have received 
national recognition." Again, the petitioner offers no argument that demonstrates error on the part 
of the director based upon the record that was before him and again fails to address any of the 
specific regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Moreover, the petitioner claimed that 
"[ u ]ntil [he] can mass product [his] inventions, no one knows about them in order to pay high 
salary or establishing the critical role in better living of the public and resulting in having many 
articles published, commercial success or receiving prizes and awards." Eligibility must be 
established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(I). (12); Maller ofKatighak, 14 I&N Dec. 
45. 49 (Regl. Commr. 1971). A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Maller of Jzummi. 22 I&N Dec. l69, 175 (Comm'r. 
1998). That decision further provides, citing Maller of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BlA 
1981), that we cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a 
petition." Jd at 176. A petitioner cannot file a petition under this classification based on the 
expectation of future eligibility. The assertion that the petitioner will be able to meet the 
regulatory criteria pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) at some undetermined time 
in the future is not sutlicient to establish eligibility for this classification. The fact remains that 
any sustained national or international acclaim of the petitioner has never been established. 
As stated in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § I 03.3(a)(l )(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed 
if the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion oflaw or statement 
of fact for the appeal. As the petitioner offers no substantive basis for the tiling of the appeal, 
the regulations mandate the summary dismissal of the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.