dismissed EB-1A Case: Medicine

identifying data deleted to 
prevent cleari:; :.mwarrante{i 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
JAN 13 2012 
INRE: 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)(1)(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 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 law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
PerryRhew 
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 July 21,2010, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on 
appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissyd. 
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 as a physician. In the director's decision, he determined that the 
petitioner failed to meet the awards criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), the membership criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), 
the published material criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the 
judging criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the original 
contributions criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the scholarly 
articles criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), the leading or critical 
role criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), and the high salary 
criterion pursuant to the regulation at C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
On appeal, rather than challenging any of the director's specific findings, counsel merely claims 
that the documentary evidence meets the regulatory criteria at 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Specifically, counsel asserts: 
We respectfully assert that clear evidence was submitted showing that in 
particular [the petitioner] has made great contributions to the field through both 
his research work as well as clinical abilities, both well attested to by both his 
peers with whom he has worked as well as independent testimonials from 
prominent members of the field at prominent institutions, and citation of his 
original work by later researchers. In addition [the petitioner] is a member of 
most [sic] of the most prominent medical societies in the country. Generally, 
these societies do not require outstanding achievements on the part of their 
members, but this is the norm with regard to American medical societies as we 
respectfully assert. In addition, [the petitioner's] record of publication is very 
impressive as is his record of presentation at major conferences. He has also 
sustained citations in prominent journals. Purthermore he has judged the work of 
even senior peers on several levels. Also there are testimonials submitted 
showing that he has been indispensable member of his current department and 
institution. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v) provides that "[a]n 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." In this case, counsel has not 
identified as a proper basis for the appeal an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in 
the director's decision. Instead, counsel made general assertions without specifically identifying 
any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. Again, counsel offers no 
argument that demonstrates error on the part of the director based upon the record that was before 
him. 
Page 3 
It is noted that counsel does not even mention, let alone contest, the decision of the director 
regarding the awards criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the published 
material criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), and the high salary 
criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). The AAO, therefore, considers 
these issues to be abandoned. See Sepulveda v. Us. Atty Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (lith Cir. 
2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 
2011) (the court found the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to 
theAAO). 
The AAO further notes that the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
requires "[d]ocumentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which is 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields." Although counsel asserts 
that it is normal for medical societies in the United States to not require outstanding achievements of 
its members, counsel failed to submit any documentary evidence to support her assertions. The 
unsupported statements of counsel on appeal or in a motion are not evidence and thus are not 
entitled to any evidentiary weight. See INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 188-89 n.6 (1984). 
Regardless, as the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) does require "outstanding 
achievements of their members," the petitioner's memberships in associations that do not require 
outstanding achievements fail to establish eligibility for the membership criterion pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
In addition, the AAO notes that while counsel claimed that the petitioner's record of publication 
is impressive, the director discussed the scholarly articles criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Specifically, the director stated that although the petitioner indicated 
on his resume that he published 11 articles, the petitioner submitted only two articles and failed 
to submit any evidence that they were published in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media as required by the regulation. Again, counsel provided no argument regarding 
the director's specific findings for this criterion. 
As stated 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. As counsel offers no substantive basis for the filing of the appeal for any 
of the criteria, the regulations mandate the summary dismissal of the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.