dismissed EB-1A Case: Painting

• 
DATE: OCT 1 9 2012 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
u.s. I)cpartment of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Offit:e (1\1\0) 
20 Mas:.achusetLs Ave., N.W., MS 20lJO 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ahility Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § llS3(h)(1)(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 he advised 
that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must he made to that office. 
If you helieve 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 rcopen 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 he found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.S. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
"-A~ tf0.<- f'"-
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.llscis.gov 
• 
-Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
Service Center, on September 6, 2011, 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)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.s.c. § 1153(b)(I)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in the arts as a painter. 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)(1)(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 determined that the petitioner had "met the plain language of 
at least three of the ten criteria found at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)." The director then conducted a final 
merits determination in accordance with Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) and, after 
providing a discussion of the deficiencies in the submitted evidence, determined that the petitioner 
"hal s ) not reached a level of expertise indicating that you are one of that small percent of individuals 
who has risen to the top of their field of endeavor," as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and that the 
evidence "does not establish sustained acclaim." See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act. 
On appeal, counsel asserts in part 3 on Form 1-2908, Notice of Appeal or Motion, that "[tJhe denial 
decision ... is not supported by the facts on record and has failed to consider the merits of the case" 
and that "[tJhe denial. .. is unfair and capricious." Counsel's subsequent brief generally repeats 
previous claims and, in fact, the appellate brief is almost identical to counsel's response to the 
director's request for evidence. Resubmitting a previous cover letter with the addition of a few new 
sentences requesting another "look" at previously submitted evidence is not a substantive appeal. 
Counsel's brief references previously submitted evidence, without explaining why the AAO should 
find those claims any more persuasive than the director did. The only new discussion appears on 
page 10, where counsel quotes the director's final merits determination analysis of the evidence of 
judging the work of others. In a single sentence following this quote, counsel identifies initial 
Exhibit E and subsequent Exhibit E-l as providing the "answer to the questions" raised by the 
director. Initial Exhibit E relates to published material, none of which relates to the petitioner's role 
as a judge. Initial Exhibit D and subsequent Exhibit E-l both relate to the petitioner's work as a 
judge, but none of the evidence in these exhibits, consisting of letters, certificates of appreciation and 
photographs of trophies, resolves the deficiencies raised by the director, including a lack of 
information about the artists whose work the petitioner judged and their level of expertise. 
• 
Page 3 
Counsel did not provide any additional evidence or offer any additional arguments identifying any 
errors of law or fact in the director's analysis such that the AAO could find the appeal to be substantive. 
See Desravines v. United States Attorney Gen., No. 08-14861, 343 F. App'x 433, 435 (11th Cir. 
2009) (finding that issues not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(I)(v) provides that "[ajn 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." Counsel offers no argument that 
demonstrates error on the part of the director based upon the record that was before him and the 
petitioner submits no new evidence other than his own statement which generally repeats counsel's 
assertions. 
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.