dismissed EB-1A Case: Music

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve..N.W.. MS 2090
Washington..DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DA,TE: OFFICE:TEXASSERVICECENTER FILE:Du 2 0 2011
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien Workerasan Alien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section203(b)(l)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct;8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decisionof the AdministrativeAppealsOffice in your case. All of the
documentsrelatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedtotheofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Please
beadvisedthatanyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadetothatoffice.
If youbelievethelaw wasinappropriatelyappliedbyusin reachingourdecision,or youhaveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile amotionto reconsideror a motionto reopen.
Thespecificrequirementsfor filing sucharequestcanbefoundat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.All motionsmustbe
submittedto theoffice thatoriginallydecidedyourcaseby filing a FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor
Motion,with a feeof $630. Pleasebeawarethat8C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthatanymotionmust
befiled within30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: Theemployment-basedimmigrantvisapetitionwasdeniedbytheDirector,Texas
ServiceCenter,on April 12,2010,andis nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) on
appeal.Theappealwill besummarilydismissed.
The petitioner seeksclassificationas an employment-basedimmigrant pursuantto section
203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A),asan
alien of extraordinaryability as a musicianand performer. In the director's decision,he
determinedthatthe petitionerfailed to meetthe awardscriterionpursuantto the regulationat 8
C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i),the publishedmaterialcriterionpursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii), and the high salary criterion pursuant to the regulation at C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix).Thedirectoralsodeterminedthatthepetitionerdid meetthejudgingcriterion
pursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Onappeal,ratherthanchallenginganyof thedirector'sspecificfindings,counselmerelyrepeats
the languageof the statuteandregulationsandgenerallyclaimsthatthe documentaryevidence
meetstheregulatorycriteriaat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).Counselgenerallystates:
[The] [i]mmigrationofficer erredin denyingtheI-140petitionof [thepetitioner],
who is an extraordinaryandaccomplishedmusician,uniquesingerandtalented
pianist. Substantialamountof evidencewas submittedto establishthat his
petitioner is truly an extraordinary musician, with sustained national and
internationalacclaim,whoseeksto continuework in USandhasdonesoalready,
andwhoseentryasanimmigrantto US will substantiallybenefitthe US andits
music world. This petition presentedevidenceof internationallyrecognized
awardsandinformationaboutsuchawards;evidenceof publishedmaterialthis
petitioner in major media; evidencethat petitionerdid judge work of others;
evidenceof petitioner'soriginalcontribution- not manycancombined[sic] A22
with Turkmen Folk music. Numerousdocumentswere ignored and not
completely considered. Pleasereview this casein its entirely andapprovedthe l-
140petition.
Theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 103.3(a)(1)(v)providesthat"[a]n officer to whomanappealistaken
shall summarilydismissany appealwhenthe partyconcernedfails to identify specificallyany
erroneousconclusionof law or statementof fact for the appeal" In this case,counselhasnot
identifiedasaproperbasisfor theappealanerroneousconclusionof law or a statementof factin
thedirector'sdecision. Instead,counselmadegeneralassertionswithoutspecificallyidentifying
any erroneousconclusionof law or statementof fact for theappeal. Again, counseloffers no
argumentthatdemonstrateserroronthepartof thedirectorbasedupontherecordthatwasbefore
him. It is notedthat counselclaimedthe petitioner'seligibility for the original contributions
criterionpursuantto theregulationat8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(v)for thefirsttimeonappeal.Thereis
no indicationfrom a review of the recordof proceedingthat counselpreviouslyclaimedthe
petitioner'seligibilityfor theoriginalcontributionscriterion,andthedirectorfoundthatnoevidence
wassubmittedfor thatcriterion.In addition,counseldoesnotreferto anydocumentaryevidenceto
supportherassertionsthatcertainevidencewasallegedly"ignoredandnotcompletelyconsidered."
Page3
Theunsupportedstatementsof counselon appealor in a motionarenot evidenceandthusare
notentitledto anyevidentiaryweight.SeeINSv.Phinpathya,464U.S.183,188-89n.6(1984).
Althoughon appealthepetitionersubmitteda self-servingaffidavit thatsummarizedhermusical
educationandexperience,the petitionerdoesnot allegethat the directormisappliedthe law or
statementof fact in his decision. Furthermore,the affidavit doesnot overcomeany of the
deficienciescitedby thedirector. Forexample,thedirectorspecificallyandsufficientlydiscussed
thepetitioner'sawardsandhowtheyfailedto establishthenationalor internationalrecognitionfor
excellencein the field. While in her affidavit the petitionerindicatedher participationand
placementsin competitions,thepetitionerfailedto addressthenationalor internationalrecognition
for excellenceof her awardsas requiredpursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i).
Moreover,the petitioner'saffidavit fails to mentionanypublishedmaterialaboutthe petitioner
relatingto her work pursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii).Finally,neitherthe
petitioner'saffidavit nor counsel'sargumentson appealcontestthe decisionof the director
regardingthe high salarycriterionpursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix).The
AAO, therefore,considersthis issueto be abandoned.SeeSepulvedav. US. Att'y Gen.,401
F.3d1226,1228n.2 (11thCir.2005).
As statedin the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.3(a)(1)(v),anappealshallbesummarilydismissed
if thepartyconcernedfails to identify specificallyanyerroneousconclusionof law or statement
of fact for the appeal.As counseloffersno substantivebasisfor thefiling of the appealfor any
of thecriteria,theregulationsmandatethesummarydismissalof theappeal
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.