dismissed EB-1A Case: Medicine

(b)(6)
DATE: JAN 2 6 2015 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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 to 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 (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:/Jwww.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www .uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECI SION 
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 "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), which 
makes visas available to aliens 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 determined that the petitioner had not satisfied the initial 
evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.P.R § 204.5(h)(3), which requires documentation of a one-time 
achievement or evidence that meets at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
The petitioner asserts within the appellate statement that his previously submitted evidence showed that 
he met the contributions criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the scholarly articles criterion at 8 C.P.R 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi), and the leading roles criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). In general, the appellate 
statement indicates: (1) that the petitioner has distinguished himself from his peers; (2) that he 
submitted clear evidence showing the petitioner has made significant contributions to the field; and (3) 
that his work has impacted the national interest. More specifically, the petitioner lists manuscripts 
"selected for publication or presentation," some of which have dates that have passed, and claims his 
selection to review for two journals, expert letters, and his work history show his eligibility for the 
contributions and the leading roles criteria. 
On appeal, the petitioner does not specifically address the reasons stated for the denial nor does he 
identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact on the part of the director. Instead, the 
appellate brief provides a list of manuscripts by the petitioner with publication and presentation dates 
that postdate the filing date of the petition, June 25, 2013. Even if the petitioner provided 
documentation of these works, which he has not, this evidence did not exist at the time the petitioner 
filed the present petition. A petitioner must establish the elements for the approval of the petition at the 
time of filing. 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12). As noted by the director when addressing the scholarly 
articles criterion, the petition may not be approved if the petitioner was not qualified at the priority date, 
but expects to become eligible at a subsequent time. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 
(Reg'l Comm'r 1971). As the petitioner has not established that any of his manuscripts appeared in 
publications prior to the filing date, the petitioner has not established that the director erred in 
concluding that the petitioner has not satisfied the scholarly articles criterion at 8 C.P.R 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
On appeal, the petitioner no longer address three criteria he previously claimed to meet. Specifically, 
the director determined that the petitioner did not submit evidence to satisfy the plain language 
requirements of the following criteria: (1) the awards criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i); (2) the 
membership criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii); and the judging criterion at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). As the petitioner does not address these criteria on appeal, the petitioner has 
abandoned his claims under these criteria. Sepulveda v. U. S. Atty Gen., 401 P.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th 
Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECI SION 
Page 3 
2011) (the court found the plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the 
AAO). 
In addition to listing articles and presentations that postdate the filing of the petition, the petitioner 
discusses two criteria on appeal: the contributions of major significance criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) and the leading role criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). In addressing the 
contributions criterion, the director first acknowledged the petitioner's research work in the field and 
several letters from those in the medical field. The director discussed multiple letters, noting that none 
of the letters demonstrated that the petitioner had impacted his field through original contributions that 
were of major significance. On appeal, the petitioner does not include any specific discussion of any of 
the letters on record in which he identifies the manner in which the director might have erroneously 
considered the letters. Rather, the petitioner provides a generalized discussion of the letters, asserting: 
"Numerous testimonies submitted with the original application as well as with the response to the 
request for evidence made clear that [the petitioner] is highly respected for his clinical abilities in the 
field." This general statement does not explain how the director erred in concluding that the references 
professed their esteem for the petitioner and discussed his skill and experience without explaining his 
influence in the field at a level consistent with contributions of major significance. 
Second, regarding the leading or critical role criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the director 
indicated that the petitioner has "performed admirably as [a] Neonatologist and the other tasks he was 
assigned to perform." The director also discussed multiple letters outlining how the letters were not 
sufficient to demonstrate the petitioner's eligibility for this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner does not 
provide any discussion of which letter, combination of letters, or other evidence demonstrates how the 
petitioner's position within the hierarchy of an organization or establishment was consistent with a 
leading role or how his impact on an organization or establishment was consistent with a critical role. 
In addition, the petitioner does not assert that the director did not consider any of the previously 
submitted evidence. 
The reason for filing an appeal is to provide an affected party with the means to remedy what he or she 
perceives as an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact within a decision in a previous 
proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). Without such an error specifically identified within the 
appeal, the affected party has not identified the basis for the appeal. 
Additionally, the petitioner provides his curriculum vitae with the appeal, while also reiterating that the 
previously provided evidence demonstrated the petitioner's eligibility for the classification sought. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) 
(citing Matter ofTreasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
As stated in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the 
concerned party does not identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for 
the appeal. Cf Idy v. Holder, 674 F.3d 111, 116 (1st Cir. 2012) (where an alien fails to raise any legal 
issue regarding the Board of Immigration Appeals denial of an inadmissibility waiver, the Court of 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECI SION 
Page 4 
Appeals is deprived of jurisdiction). See also Desravines v. US . Atty. Gen., 343 F. App'x 433, 435 
(11th Cir. 2009) (finding that issues mentioned but 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 fLling of the appeal. As the petitioner has not challenged 
the director's analysis beyond merely asserting that the director reached the wrong conclusion, the 
appeal must be summ arily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.