dismissed EB-1A Case: Medicine

• I 
DATE: 
OCT 22 2012 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Securit) 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachu.<;etts Ave., N.W .. MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
US_ 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)( I leA) 
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. § I 03.5(a)( I lei) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
)rf2< Z;~ r/ 
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 March 27, 2012, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on 
appeal. TIle appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(J)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § I I 53(b)(\)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in the scicnc~s ;JS a nhysician. 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 detemlined 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 membership 
criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(ii), the original contributions criterion 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the leading or critical role criterion 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(viii) and the high salary criterion pursuant to 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(ix). The director did find that the petitioner satisfied the 
judging criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iv) and the authorship of 
scholarly articles criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(vi). Finally, the director conducted a final 
merits determination in accordance with Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d IllS (9th Cir. 20 I 0) and 
determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that he "is one of that small percentage who 
has risen to the top of their field of endeavor." ~ C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(2) and that the evidence "does 
not establish sustained acclaim." See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner meets the original contributions criterion and the 
leading or critical role criterion. Specifically, counsel asserts in part 3 of Form 1-290B, Notice of 
Appeal or Motion: 
THE RECORD REFLECTS [THE PETITIONERj'S EXTRAORDINARY 
ABILITY IN HIS FIELD OF EXPERTISE WITH DEMONSTRATED 
SUST AINED NATIONAL ACCLAIM. The Service concedes that two of the 
categories halve] already been met - JUDGE OF THE WORK OF OTHERS and 
AUTHORSHIP OF SCHOLARLY ARTICLES. 
ORIGINAL SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS 
We submit that [the petitioner] has significantly contributed to the field of 
ANESTHESIOLOGY, through his research and clinical work. The previously 
" . 
Page 3 
submitted evidence shows that [the petitioner] has made contributions to the field 
which have been considered significant and original. [The petitioner] has 
received invitations from conferences around the world to present his research 
because his research is considered that important. He has also received 
invitations to review on-going research and write manuscripts together for 
publication. 
LEADING [OR] CRlTlCAL ROLE 
The attached documents and reference letters along with the previously submitted 
evidence shows that [the petitioned h&s performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations that have a distinguished reputation. 
The AAO notes that, contrary to counsel's statement above referencing "attached documents and 
reference letters," no additional documentation was included. Furthermore, counsel indicated that 
"[n]o supplemental brief and/or additional evidence will be submitted." Counsel generally repeats 
previous claims, without explaining why the AAO should find those claims any more persuasive 
than the director did. Counsel did not provide any additional evidence or offer any additional 
arguments identifying any errors of law or fact in the director's analysis. See Desravines v. United 
Slales AI/orney Gen., No. 08-14861, 343 F. App'x 433, 435 (11th Cir. 2009) (finding that issues not 
briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned). Counsel does not specifically challenge any of the 
director's findings or point to specific errors in the director's analyses of the documentary evidence 
submitted for the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(I)(v) provides that "[a]n otlicer 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 matter, counsel has not 
identified an erroneous conclusion oflaw or a statement of fact in the director's decision as a proper 
basis for the appeal. Counsel offers no argument that demonstrates error on the part of the director 
based upon the record that was before him and includes no additional evidence. 
As counsel did not contest any of the specific findings of the director 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.