dismissed EB-1A Case: Medicine

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal priv~y 
PUBLTCCOPY 
DATE: JUL 2 5 2012 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)(I)(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 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)(l)(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, on September 27, 2011, 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)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability. Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary 
ability by requiring through the statute that the petitioner demonstrate "sustained national or 
international acclaim" and present "extensive documentation" of his or her achievements. See 
section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim 
through evidence of a one-time achievement, specifically a major, internationally recognized 
award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten categories of specific 
evidence. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish the basic 
eligibility requirements. 
In the director's decision, the director thoroughly discussed the documentary evidence submitted 
by the petitioner and determined 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 original contributions 
criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the scholarly articles criterion 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), and the leading or critical role criterion 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Furthermore, the director determined 
that the petitioner established eligibility for the judging criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 
C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Moreover, the director conducted a final merits determination in 
accordance with Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) and determined that the 
petitioner failed to demonstrate a (1) "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his 
or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 11S3(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3). 
On appeal, counsel claims that the petitioner meets the original contributions criterion and the 
leading or critical role criterion. Specifically, counsel claims: 
We respectfully submit that [the petitioner] has made original contributions of 
major significance in the field. Specifically, [the petitioner] is heralded as an 
extraordinary clinician in his field. His expertise is such that he has been able to 
provide guidance to other experts on the management of a variety of disorders 
treated by hospital physicians and Surgeons. Furthermore, he has been invited to 
lecture before prominent settings in his field. Experts from across the nation have 
attested to the significance of [the petitioner's] contributions as a clinician and the 
significance of his presented materials. 
* * * 
Page 3 
We submit that [the petitioner] has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. As a leading 
Surgeon, [the petitioner] has played critical roles in each and every hospital in 
which he has worked, in his clinical practice, elite research and educating fellow 
doctors with his own elite skills. 
Specifically, we refer to support letters on the record from Howard University 
Hospital describing [the petitioner's] role within the Department of Surgery and 
the leading and critical roles he performed providing patient care and teaching, as 
well as his work as a Research Scientist. He has earned leading roles with 
prominent institutions based on his demonstrated record of accomplishment and 
sustained national reputation as an expert in his field of medicine. 
Although counsel briefly challenges two of the director's findings, counsel makes general 
assertions without explaining how the conclusions of the director were incorrect as a matter of 
law or statement of fact. A passing reference without substantive arguments is insufficient to 
raise that ground on appeal. Desravines v. u.s. Atty. Gen., 343 Fed.Appx. 433, 435 (11 th Cir. 
2009). Furthermore, counsel failed to identify the petitioner's original contributions, let alone 
original contributions of major significance in the field. Rather, counsel made broad and brief 
assertions regarding the petitioner's guidance and lectures without explaining how they have 
been of major significance in the field. 
In addition, while counsel claimed that the petitioner's recommendation letters reflected his 
leading or critical role at Howard University Hospital, the director specifically reviewed the 
letters and determined that they failed to establish the petitioner's eligibility for the leading or 
critical role criterion. On appeal, counsel failed to demonstrate how the director's decision was 
incorrect as a matter of law or statement of fact. Moreover, even if on appeal counsel established 
the petitioner's leading or critical role for Howard University Hospital, which she clearly has not, 
section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act requires the submission of extensive evidence. Consistent 
with that statutory requirement, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires a leading or critical role with more than one organization or 
establishment. Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are worded in the 
plural. Specifically, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require service 
on a single judging panel or a single high salary. When a regulatory criterion wishes to include 
the singular within the plural, it expressly does so as when it states at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience must be in the form of "letter(s)." Thus, the 
AAO can infer that the plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different 
context, federal courts have upheld USCIS' ability to interpret significance from whether the 
singular or plural is used in a regulation. See Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 
(RCL) at 12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnames.com Inc. v. ChertofJ, 2006 WL 3491005 at 
*10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an interpretation that the regulatory requirement for "a" 
bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single 
degree rather than a combination of academic credentials). In the case here, counsel only claims 
the petitioner'S eligibility for the leading or critical role criterion based on a single organization. 
• 
Page 4 
In addition, counsel does not contest the findings of the director or offer any additional 
documentary evidence regarding the awards criterion, the scholarly articles criterion, and the 
director's final merits determination. The AAO, therefore, considers these issues to be 
abandoned. See Sepulveda v. u.s. AU'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226,1228 n. 2 (11th CiT. 2005); Hristov 
v. Roark, No. 09-CV-273 1201 I, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30,2011) (the 
court found the plaintiff s claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the 
AAO). 
As stated in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(I)(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. As counsel made general assertions and offers no substantive basis for the 
filing of the appeal, the regulations mandate the summary dismissal of the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.