dismissed EB-1A Case: Medical Research

< ~ 
"t;' -, 
L'~" ,~ 
PTTRq(, ropy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Scrvice~ 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: JUN 26 1612 
OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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 (AAO) 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 1-290B, 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)(1)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 30 days of the 
decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
~~O~r-
~~Rher 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Ollice 
www.uscis.gov 
DISCUSSION: The director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition on March 30, 2011. The petitioner, who is also the beneficiary, appealed the director's decision 
with the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on April 18, 201L The appeal will be dismissed, 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability," as a physician and medical 
researcher, pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. 
§ 1153(b )(1 )(A). The director determined that the petitioner has not established the sustained national or 
international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel states, in a conclusory manner, that the director erred in finding that the petitioner has 
not met the original contributions of major significance criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). Counsel has not challenged any other aspect of the director's decision, including the 
final merits determination. 
Counsel, who signed the Form 1-2908, Notice of Appeal or Motion, on the petitioner's behalf, indicates on 
the Form 1-2908 that in support of the appeal, he would submit a brief and/or additional evidence to the 
AAO within 30 days. Counsel also submits a letter, indicating that "[a] brief will follow within 30 days." 
80th the Form 1-290B and the letter are dated April 15, 2011. As of this date, over a year later, the AAO 
has received nothing further from the petitioner or counsel. 
As provided in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if "the 
party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the 
appeal." 
In this ca~e, other than providing a paragraph in which counsel asserts that the director mischaracterized the 
expert letters in the record, counsel has not specifically identified an erroneous conclusion of law or 
statement offact in the director's denial. See Desravines v. u.s. Atty. Gen., 343 F. App'x 433, 435 (11th 
Cir. 2009) (a passing reference in the arguments section of a brief without substantive arguments is 
insufficient to raise that ground on appeal). Significantly, counsel fails to address the director's 
conclusion in the final merits determination that the petitioner's minimal judging experience and honors 
as a student and trainee fail to establish that she is already within the small percentage at the top of her 
field. In addition, neither counsel nor the petitioner has provided a brief and/or any additional evidence, 
referenced as forthcoming on the Form 1-2908, dated April 15, 2011. The appeal must therefore be 
summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.