dismissed EB-1A Case: Marketing And Communications

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 18315044 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEPT . 2, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, who works in marketing and communications, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S .C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who 
can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and 
whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation . 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required . 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner 's burden to establish 
eligibility for the requested benefit. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, 
we will summarily dismiss the appeal. 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with extraordinary 
ability in the sciences, arts, education , business, or athletics which bas been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation. 
The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis . First, a 
petitioner can demonstrate international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a 
one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award), or through evidence that 
meets at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as 
awards, published material in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements , we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) . 
The Petitioner claimed to satisfy seven of the ten initial regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). The Director concluded that the Petitioner met only of these criteria, pertaining to high salary or 
other remuneration. 
The Petitioner filed the appeal on February 5, 2021. On Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
the Petitioner indicates that she "will submit [a] brief and/or additional evidence to the AAO within 
30 calendar days." To date, seven months later, the record contains no supplemental brief or evidence. 
Likewise, the record contains no communication from the Petitioner showing good cause to extend 
the time to submit such a brief as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(vii). Therefore, we consider the 
record to be complete, and the appeal form to constitute the entire appeal. 
An 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. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not 
identified specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact. 
In the denial notice, the Director devoted four pages to explaining the conclusion that the Petitioner 
had not met six of the seven claimed criteria, taking into account both the Petitioner's initial 
submission and her response to a request for evidence. 
On appeal, the Petitioner summarizes each of the Director's determinations and then asserts, without 
elaboration, that the record does not support those determinations. For example, the Petitioner states: 
"Decision erroneously concludes that published material does not discuss petitioner's work despite 
significant evidence to the contrary contained in the record." The Petitioner also states that "the 
decision mis-stated the law, did not consider all evidence contained in the record and erroneously 
concluded that certain evidence was not probative when it was very probative." 
The above assertions, and others like them, do not identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of 
law or statement of fact. Rather, the Petitioner makes broad, general claims that the record does not 
support the grounds for denial. The Petitioner refers, several times, to "significant evidence ... in the 
record," but does not identify any specific evidence, or explain how that evidence overcomes the stated 
grounds for denial. Likewise, the Petitioner does not specify how the Director "mis-stated the law" 
or explain how her evidence "was very probative." The Petitioner states that she will elaborate on 
these points in a "brief to be filed within 30 calendar days," but, as noted above, the record contains 
no such brief and no evidence of its submission. 
General assertions that the Director erred, and that the record supports approval of the petition, lack 
the specificity required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed. 
2