dismissed EB-1A Case: Medicine

DATE: NOV 192012 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizcn::.hip and Imm!gration Servicc~ 
/\dmini:.trativc Appea]:. OJli((' (A/\O) 
20 Mas:.achtl~elts Ave., :"-1.\\'., !VIS 209() 
Washitl£!ton. DC 205'29-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 USc. § I I 53(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)(I)(i) requires any motion to be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
jAJ)QJ'cdl'tl r· Ron Rosenberg 
\ Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
\\/ww.uscis.gov 
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 summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in the sciences. The director's decision discussed the deficiencies 
in the petitioner's documentary evidence as it related to the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) and found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that she meets at least three 
of the regulatory criteria. 
In Part 2 of the Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, the petitioner checked box "c" 
indicating "No supplemental brief and/or additional evidence will be submitted." Therefore, the 
appellate submission constitutes her entire appeal. The petitioner did not submit exhibits on 
appeal except for a copy of the director's denial notice. 
Part 3 of the Form 1-290B includes a space for the petitioner to "[p]rovide a statement explaining 
any erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the decision being appealed." The petitioner states: 
THE RECORD REFLECTS [THE PETITIONER'S I EXTRAORDINARY ABILITY IN 
HER FIELD OF EXPERTISE WITH DEMONSTRATED SUSTAINED NATIONAL 
ACCLAIM. 
[The petitioner] has met five of the enumerated criteria which further demonstrates her 
stature as a specialist at the top of her field who has attained sustained national and 
international acclaim through her innovative work. Of note, [the petitioner] is one of the 
rare few who has advanced expertise in both neurogastroenterology and obstetric 
anesthesia. This highly unique background has given her an understanding of obstetric 
anesthesiology that few hold. 
[The petitioner] has frequently reviewed of the work of her peers in their anesthesiology 
performance. In the critical roles she has held, [the petitioner] has judged the work of 
others on numerous occasions. Please note that testimonials discuss Ithe petitioner's] 
contributions of original and major significance and constitute documentary evidence that 
people throughout the field consider the [petitioner's I work to be important. Her work 
has resulted in publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations before national 
conferences. Testimonials document the indispensable role that [the petitioner] has 
played at world famous hospitals. Materials mention her name regarding her work in 
various forums. 
The petitioner's statement fails to identify any en'oneous conclusion of law or fact in the 
director's decision. Instead, the petitioner repeats previous claims about the documentation she 
submitted for the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) - (vi) and (viii) that first 
appeared in correspondence prior to the director's denial. The director's decision had already 
addressed the petitioner's previous claims in detail under the pertinent regulatory criteria at 
Page 3 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). To repeat those claims on appeal, with no rebuttal of the director's 
specific findings, is not sufficient grounds for appeal. A passing reference without substantive 
arguments is insufficient to raise that ground on appeal. Desravines v. U.S. Atty. Gell., 343 
Fed.Appx. 433, 435 (11 th Cir. 2009). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v) provides that 
"[aln 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 matter, the petitioner 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. The appellate 
submission offers only general statements reiterating prior assertions that the petitioner has 
demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim, has a unique background, and has 
submitted evidence pertaining to the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) - (vi) 
and (viii), but does not provide any directed argument specifying where the alleged error on the 
part of the director occurred. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(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. The petitioner has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not 
provided any additional evidence pertaining to her eligibility for the classification sought. The 
appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.