dismissed EB-1A Case: Physical Education And Sports

PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)
20MassachusettsAve.,N.W.,MS2090
Washington.DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: OFFICE:TEXASSERVICECENTER
JUNO82012
IN RE:
PETlTION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien Workerasan Alien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct; 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ONBEHALFOFPETlTIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decisionof the AdministrativeAppealsOffice in your case. All of the
documentsrelatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Please
beadvisedthatanyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believetheAAO inappropriatelyappliedthelaw in reachingits decision,or youhaveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile amotionto reconsideror a motionto reopen
with the field office or servicecenterthat originally decidedyour caseby filing a Form I-290B, Notice of
Appealor Motion,with afeeof $630.Thespecificrequirementsfor filing suchamotioncanbefoundat
8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.Do not file any motion directly with the AAO. Pleasebe awarethat 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.S(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto befiled within 30 daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto
reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The Director,TexasServiceCenter,deniedthe employment-basedimmigrant
visapetitiononNovember12,2009. TheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) dismissedthe
petitioner'sappealof thatdecisiononNovember9,2010. ThematterisnowbeforetheAAO ona
motion to reopen. The motion will be dismissed,the previousdecisionof the AAO will be
affirmed,andthepetitionwill remaindenied.
In orderto properlyfile a motion,the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(iii)requiresthatthe
motion must be "[a]ccompaniedby a statementabout whether or not the validity of the
unfavorabledecisionhasbeenor is the subjectof anyjudicial proceedingand,if so,the court,
nature,date,andstatusor result of the proceeding." Furthermore,the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.5(a)(4)requiresthat "[a] motion that doesnot meet applicablerequirementsshall be
dismissed." In this case,counselfailed to submita statementregardingif the validity of the
decisionof theAAO hasbeenor is subjectof anyjudicial proceeding.
Notwithstandingthe above,in the decisionof the AAO dismissingthe petitioner's original
appeal,the AAO foundthat the petitionerfailed to establishthat he meetsat leastthreeof the
regulatorycriteriapursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3). The AAO specifically
andthoroughlydiscussedthe petitioner'sevidenceanddeterminedthat the petitionerfailed to
establish eligibility for the awards criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(i),themembershipcriterionpursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(ii),
the publishedmaterialcriterion pursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii),the
judging criterion pursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv),and the original
contributionscriterionpursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). Moreover,the
AAO found that the petitionerminimally met the scholarlyarticlescriterion pursuantto the
regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi)andthe leadingor critical role criterionpursuantto the
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Finally, the AAO conducteda final merits
determinationpursuantto Kazarianv. USCIS,596F.3d 1115(9thCir. 2010)anddeterminedthat
thepetitionerfailedto demonstrate(1) a "level of expertiseindicatingthatthe individualis one
of that smallpercentagewho haverisento the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor,"8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(2);and(2) "that the alien hassustainednationalor internationalacclaimandthat his
or her achievementshavebeenrecognizedin thefield of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).
Onpart3 of FormI-290,Noticeof Appealor Motion,counselclaims:
The new evidencedemonstratesthe national role of the Universities in Romania,
andProfessorMateas' adjudicationswithin that systemduring the relevantperiod
of time preceding the initial application for this case. We submit the
accompanyingdocumentsto satisfythe plain languagerequirementsof 8 C.F.R.
[§] 204.5(h)(3)(iv),requiring"...[e]videnceof alien'sparticipationon apanelasa
judge of the work of othersin the same... field of specializationfor which
classificationis sought," and/or 8 C.F.R. [§] 204.5(h)(3)(v),which, requires
"[e]videnceof alien'soriginalscientific,scholarly,[or] ...athleticcontributionsof
majorsignificancein thefield. . . ."
Page3
In addition,counselsubmittedthefollowing documentation:
1. A bookentitled,FacultateadeEduca(ieFi=icòyi Sportdin Oradea
2. Lettersfrom and from the
Universityof Oradea;
3. DocumentationregardingtheNationalUniversityResearchCouncil;and
4. DocumentationregardingtheUniversityof OradeaPublishingHouse.
A motionto reopenmuststatethe new factsto be providedandbe supportedby affidavits or
otherdocumentaryevidence.8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(2).Basedon the plain meaningof "new," a
new fact is foundto be evidencethatwasnot availableandcouldnot havebeendiscoveredor
presentedin thepreviousproceeding.'
Regardingthejudging criterion,in thedirector'soriginaldecision,headdressedthe insufficient
letter from regardingthe petitioner's purported"selection to the judging
panels." On appeal,counselclaimed that the petitionerjudged faculty candidateswithout
submitting any supportingdocumentation. In the AAO's decision,the AAO affirmed the
director'sconclusionregarding letterandaddressedthe unsupportedassertionsof
counsel. Withoutdocumentaryevidenceto supportthe claim,the assertionsof counselwill not
satisfythepetitioner'sburdenof proof. Theunsupportedassertionsof counseldo not constitute
evidence.Matterof Obaigbena,19I&N Dec.533,534n.2 (BIA 1988);Matter of Laureano,19
I&N Dec.1,3n.2(BIA 1983);Matterof Ramirez-Sanchez,17I&N Dec.503,506(BIA 1980).
Theunsupportedstatementsof counselon appealor in a motionarenot evidenceandthusare
notentitledto anyevidentiaryweight.SeeINSv.Phinpathya,464U.S.183,188-89n.6(1984).
The AAO also indicatedin the decisionthat the petitionerdid submit a certificatefrom the
Faculty of Physical Education and SportsOradeareflecting that the petitioner was part of the
entrancecommittee.However,thecertificatefailedto reflectthatthepetitionerparticipatedasa
judge of the work of others consistentwith the plain languageof the regulation at 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Onmotion,counselfailedto explainwhy theevidencewaspreviouslyunavailableandcouldnot
havebeensubmittedearlier. The petitionerhasbeenaffordedthreedifferent opportunitiesto
submitthis evidence:at the time of the original filing of the petition on August20, 2009,in
responseto the director'srequestfor additionalevidenceon October6, 2009,andat thetime of
the filing of the appealon December11,2009. A review of the evidencethat the petitioner
Theword"new" isdefinedas"1. havingexistedor beenmadefor onlya shorttime. . . 3.Justdiscovered,found,or
learned<newevidence>. . . ." WEBSTER^SII NEWRIVERSIDEUNlVERSITYDICTIONARY792 (1984)(emphasisin
original).
Page4
submitsonmotionrevealsnofactthatcouldbeconsidered"new" under8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(2)
and, therefore,cannotbe considereda proper basisfor a motion to reopen. Further,while
counselindicatedthatthe documentaryevidencesubmittedon motionalsosatisfiedthe original
contributionscriterion,counselfailedto explainhow theevidenceconstitutesor evenrelatesto
the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)that requiresoriginal
contributionsof major significancein the field. Again, counselfailed to explain why the
evidencewaspreviouslyunavailableandcouldnothavebeensubmittedearlier.
Motionsfor thereopeningof immigrationproceedingsaredisfavoredfor thesamereasonsasare
petitionsfor rehearingandmotionsfor a new trial on the basisof newly discoveredevidence.
INSv. Dohertg502U.S.314,323(1992)(citingINSv. Abudu,485U.S.94 (1988)). A party
seekingto reopena proceedingbearsa "heavyburden." INS v.Abudu,485 U.S.at 110. With
thecurrentmotion,thepetitionerhasnotmetthatburden.
TheAAO notesthatcounselfailedto addresstheAAO's decisionregardingtheawardscriterion,
the membershipcriterion,andthe publishedmaterialcriterion. TheAAO, therefore,considers
theseissuesto beabandoned.SeeSepulvedav. US.Att'y Gen..401F.3d1226,1228n. 2 (11th
Cir.2005);Hristovv,Roark,No.09-CV-27312011,2011WL 4711885at *l, *9 (E.D.N.Y.Sept.
30, 2011)(thecourt foundthe plaintiff's claimsto beabandonedashe failed to raisethemon
appealto the AAO). Similarly,counselfailedto addresstheAAO's final meritsdetermination.
Therefore,evenif thepetitionerwereto demonstratethathemeetsat leastthreeof theregulatory
categoriesof evidence,which the AAO does not imply, counsel failed to establishthe
petitioner'sachievementsat the time of filing the petition werecommensuratewith sustained
nationalor internationalacclaim,or thathewasamongthat smallpercentageat the very top of
thefield of endeavor.
Moreover,upona reviewof theAAO's decision,theAAO determinedthatthepetitionermetthe
leadingor critical role criterion basedon his role with WeymouthClub. However,section
203(b)(1)(A)(i)of the Act requiresthe submissionof extensiveevidence.Consistentwith that
statutoryrequirement,the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires
the petitioner's leading or critical role in more than one organization or establishmentwith a
distinguishedreputation. Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)are
wordedin the plural. Specifically,the regulationsat 8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(ix) only
requireserviceon a singlejudging panelor a singlehigh salary. Whena regulatorycriterion
wishesto include the singularwithin theplural, it expresslydoesso aswhen it statesat 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B)that evidenceof experiencemustbe in the form of "letter(s)." Thus,the
AAO caninfer that the plural in the remainingregulatorycriteriahasmeaning. In a different
context,federalcourtshaveupheldUSCIS' ability to interpretsignificancefrom whetherthe
singularor plural is usedin a regulation. SeeMaramjayav. USCIS,Civ. Act. No. 06-2158
(RCL)at 12(D.C.Cir. March26,2008);Snapnames.comInc.v. Chertoff2006WL 3491005at
*10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006)(upholdingan interpretationthattheregulatoryrequirementfor "a"
bachelor'sdegreeor "a" foreignequivalentdegreeat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(1)(2)requiresa single
degreeratherthan a combinationof academiccredentials). In the casehere,the petitioner
Page5
demonstratedhis leadingor criticalrolewith only oneestablishment.As such,theAAO must
withdrawits priordeterminationregardingtheleadingor critical rolecriterion.
Theburdenof proofin visapetitionproceedingsremainsentirelywith thepetitioner.Section291
of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361.Here,thepetitionerhasnotsustainedthatburden.
ORDER: Themotionto reopenis dismissed,the decisionof the AAO datedNovember9,
2010,is affirmed,andthepetitionremainsdenied.