dismissed EB-1A Case: Not Specified

identieing data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
mion of pc"l privac) 
PUBLIC COPY 
C1.S. 1)epartment of tlomeland Secority 
U.S. Citi~ensli~p and Imm~yrurio~i Ser\iccs 
Office o/ .I~~~JII~I~SII .t,t~,t~errl.\ MS 2000 
Wnsliing1on. DC 20520-2000 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: SRC 08 800 22009 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: OCT 2 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned 
to the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to 
have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 
9 103.5 for the specific requirements. 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 $585. Any motion must be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
4 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
&plir 42 
ir em Rhew 
'p'~hi;f, Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 08 800 22009 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Texas Service Center. The petition is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on 
appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification of the beneficiary 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. The director determined the petitioner had 
not established the beneficiary's sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify 
for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the 
petitioner had submitted no documentary evidence in support of the petition and therefore had 
failed to establish the beneficiary's eligibility for this immigrant visa petition. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner submitted "detailed evidence in 
support of the petition" on August 20,2008, "which the USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services] has apparently ignored." The petitioner submits copies of documentation that counsel 
states had been previously submitted. Counsel, however, provided no supporting evidence, such as a 
certified mail receipt or express mail receipt, reflecting the manner or date the evidence was 
purportedly submitted to USCIS. The record does not reflect that USCIS received any documentary 
evidence in support of the petition, and the petitioner has submitted no evidence to overcome the 
director's ground for denial of the petition. Counsel's mere statements, unsupported by any 
documentary evidence regarding the actual submission of the documents claimed, are not sufficient 
to overcome the director's findings. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the 
assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions 
of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 
1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1,3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 
I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.