dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal pri vacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
DATE: JUL 0 2 2012 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Stcurity 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (1\1\0) 
20 Massachusclls 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)(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 mailer 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 1-290B, 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 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, Texas 
Service Center and 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) 
of the 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 established the requisite extraordinary ability 
and failed to submit extensive documentation of his sustained national or international acclaim. 
On appeal, the petitioner, through counsel, fails to specifically address the reasons stated for the denial 
and to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact on the part of the director. Instead, 
the counsel merely provides a historical account of the petitioner's previously claimed achievements. 
Counsel lists the regulatory requirements that, in his opinion, the AAO should presume that the 
petitioner meets, but fails to provide any meaningful guidance to the AAO regarding what evidence or 
what detenmination of the director is in contention. 
Specifically, the director first acknowledged that the petitioner was the recipient of several awards, but 
noted the lack of evidence, such as media coverage of the competitions, of the national or international 
recognition of the awards pursuant to the plain language at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). On appeal, 
counsel merely reiterates the awards without responding to the director's specific concerns. Second, the 
director acknowledged the petitioner's memberships but concluded that the record lacked evidence that 
the associations require outstanding achievements of their members pursuant to the plain language at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). On appeal, counsel merely reiterates that the petitioner is a member of 
certain associations and resubmits background material on those associations without submitting 
evidence documenting that the associations require outstanding achievements of their members. Third, 
the director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated that his articles were published in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media pursuant to the plain language at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). On appeal, counsel merely reiterates that the petitioner authored the articles without 
providing any new evidence regarding the publications in which the articles appeared. 
Fourth, the director concluded that the petitioner's athletic competitions were not artistic showcases or 
exhibitions pursuant to the plain language at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). On appeal, counsel merely 
reiterates that the petitioner perfonmed martial arts at "commercial or artistic" exhibitions. This 
assertion does not address the director's reliance on the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.S(h)(3)(vii), which does not include "commercial" exhibitions. Fifth, the director concluded that 
the petitioner had not demonstrated the impact of his contributions to or leading role with organizations 
for which the petitioner has worked such that the petitioner had demonstrated his leading or critical role 
for an organization or establishment with a distinguished reputation pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). On appeal, counsel merely lists the petitioner's past positions and previously 
submitted evidence. 
Finally, the director noted that while most of the petitioner'S accomplishments were as an athlete, the 
petitioner sought to enter the United States to work as an instructor. On appeal, counsel asserts that the 
• 
Page 3 
'"cumulative etIccf' of the petitioner's "achievements both as a Wushu athlete and a Wushu instructor" 
demonstrates the petitioner's eligibility, Counsel provides no legal authority that would allow U,S, 
Citizenship and Immigration Services to combine athletic and coaching accomplishments to determine 
whether a petitioner has satisfied the evidentiary requirement of submitting at least three types o[ 
qualifying evidence, 8 c,F,R, § 2045(h)(3), Lee v, INS., 237 F, Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2002) 
(upholding a finding that coaching and performing as an athlete are not the same area of expertise). 
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 oflaw or statement of fact [or the 
appeal. Cf Idy v. Holder, No. 11-1078,2012 WL 975567 (1st Cir. Mar. 23, 2(12) (where an alien 
fails to raise any legal issue regarding the Board of Immigration Appeals denial of an inadmissibility 
waiver, the Court of Appeals is deprived of jurisdiction). See also Desravines v. United States 
Attorney General, No. 08-14861, 343 F. App'x 433, 435 (lith Cir. 2009) (tinding that issues not 
briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned); 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 sufficiently identified a basis for the appeal. The 
petitioner does not contest the director's specific findings and offers no substantive basis for the filing 
of the appeal. A, the petitioner failed to challenge the director's analysis beyond merely asserting that 
the director reached the wrong conclusion, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.