dismissed EB-1A Case: Medicine

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
Officeof AdministrativeAppealsMS2090
identifymg data deleted to Washington.DC 20529-2090
preventclearlyunwarranted , U.S.Citizenship
invasionofpersonalpnvacy : andImmigration
PUBLICCOPY services
FILE: Office: NEBRASKASERVICECENTER Date: DEC 15 2010
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
APPLICATION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien WorkerasanAlienof ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
I153(b)(l)(A)
ON BEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase. All of thedocuments
relatedto this matterhavebeenreturnedto the office that originally decidedyour case. Pleasebeadvisedthat
any further inquiry that you might haveconcerningyour casemust be madeto that office.
If you believethe law was inappropriatelyappliedby us in reachingour decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,you mayfile a motionto reconsideror amotionto reopen.The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha requestcan be found at 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5. All motionsmustbe
submittedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcasebyfiling a FormI-2908,Noticeof Appealor Motion.
Thefeefor a FormI-290Biscurrently$585,butwill increaseto $630onNovember23,2010. Anyappealor
motionfiled onor afterNovember23,2010mustbefiled with the$630fee. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§
103.5(a)(1)(i) requiresthat any motion must be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeksto
reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
erry Rhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.users.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The employment-basedimmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director,
NebraskaServiceCenter,andis nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) onappeal.The
appealwill besummarilydismissed.
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-basedimmigrant pursuantto section
203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct),8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A),asanalien
of extraordinaryability. Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionerhadnot establishedextraordinary
ability throughextensivedocumentationandsustainednationalor internationalacclaim.
Congressseta veryhighbenchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryability by requiringthroughthestatute
that the petitionerdemonstratethe alien's"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim"and present
"extensivedocumentation"of the alien'sachievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of the Act and
8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).Theimplementingregulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)statesthatanaliencan
establishsustainednationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-timeachievement,
specificallya major. internationallyrecognizedaward. Absentthe receiptof suchan award,the
regulationoutlinestencategoriesof specificobjectiveevidence.8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)through(x).
The petitionermustsubmitqualifying evidenceunderat leastthreeof the ten regulatorycategoriesof
evidenceto establishthebasiceligibility requirements.
On February13,2009,the petitionersubmitteda Form I-140. ImmigrantPetition for Alien Worker,a
statementandadditionalevidence.OnJuly 16,2009,thedirectorissueda requestfor evidence(RFE).
On August21, 2009,the petitionerfiled a responseto the RFE. Thedirectordeniedthepetitionon
September16,2009andthepetitionersubmitteda timely FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion
on October16,2009. In his denial,thedirectoraddressedthepetitioner'sdocumentaryevidenceas
it relatedto nine of the ten criteria pursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically,
thedirectordiscussedthepetitioner'sdocumentaryevidencerelatingto thelesserawardscriterionat
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i),the membershipcriterion pursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R. §
204.5(h)(3)(ii),thepublishedmaterialaboutthealiencriterionpursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii),thejudging criterionpursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv),the
originalcontributioncriterionpursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v),thescholarly
articlescriterionpursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi),the artisticexhibitionsor
showcasescriterionpursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii),the leadingor critical
rolecriterionpursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii),andthe highsalarycriterion
pursuantto theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix).
Onappeal,counselfailsto specifyhowthedirectormadeanyerroneousconclusionof lawor statement
of fact in denyingthe petition. In her brief on appeal,counselvaguelystatedthat the petitioner
submittedevidencethathe"hasmadegreatcontributionsto thefieldthroughbothhisresearchworkas
well asclinicalabilities"andgenerallyassertedthat"substantialevidence"wassubmitted"in mostof
the relevantcategories,namelyleadingroles,memberships,judge of the work of others,original
contributions,publications,[and]materialaboutthealien." As it relatesto the membershipcriterion,
counseladmitsthatthesocietiesthatthepetitionerbelongsto "do notrequireoutstandingachievement
on the part of their members"but statesthat "this is the norm with regardto Americanmedical
societies." Counselalso statesthat the petitioneris an "outstanding"physicianand scientist(not
Page3
extraordinaryas requiredby the classificationsought)and that "this hasbeendemonstratedon the
recordsubmitted."
On appeal,counselfailedto specificallyaddressanyof the director'sdeterminationsor provideany
specificargumentdetailingthe director'sallegederrors. Counsel'sgeneralreferenceto submitted
evidence,without specificargumentsealwithout providing any meaningfulguidanceto the AAO
regardingwhatevidenceor determinationis in contention.Theunsupportedstatementsof counselon
appealor in a motionarenotevidenceandthusarenotentitledto anyevidentiaryweight. SeeINSv.
Phinpathya,464 U.S. 183,188-89n.6 (1984);Mauerof Ramirez-Sanchez,17I&N Dec.503(BIA
1980). Counselprovidedno furtherevidenceon appeal.Counsel'svaguerecitationof theevidence
submittedand consideredby the director,without any detailedargumentregardingthe director's
allegedlyerroneousconsiderationof theevidencedoesnot sufficientlyapprisetheAAO of theissues
in contention.
Theregulationat 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v),states,in pertinentpart:
An officer to whomanappealis takenshallsummarilydismissanyappealwhen
the partyconcernedfails to identify specificallyanyerroneousconclusionof law
or statementof fact for the appeal.
In visapetitionproceedings,the burdenof provingeligibility for thebenefitsoughtremainsentirely
with thepetitioner.Section291of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361.Inasmuchasthepetitionerhasfailedto
identify specificallyan erroneousconclusionof law or a statementof fact in this proceeding,the
petitionerhasnot sustainedthatburden.Therefore,theappealwill besummarilydismissed.
ORDER: Theappealis summarilydismissed.