dismissed EB-1A Case: Pulmonary And Critical Care Medicine

Identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarr~ted 
invasion of personal pnv8C)' 
PUBLlCCOPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citi/cnship and immigration Scnicc" 
At\minis[rati\'l' Appeab Orne..:: (1\:\0) 
20 Massachusetts .the., J\.W .. MS 2090 
WashinL'.Lol1. DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: 
JUL 1 2 2012 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(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)(1)(i) requires any motion to be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska 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)(I)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in the sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established the requisite extraordinary ability through extensive documentation and sustained 
national or international acclaim. 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 establish sustained national or 
international acclaim and that she was among that small percentage at the very top of her field of 
endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
On appeal, counsel states: 
THE RECORD REFLECTS THROUGH [the petitioner's] LEADING ROLES AT 
PROMINENT MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS ALONG WITH HIS [sic] HISTORY OF 
ORIGINAL PRESENTATION AND SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE 
FIELD OF PULMONARY AND CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE THAT [the petitioner] 
ALONG WITH HIS [sic] WORK IN JUDGING OTHERS AND OUTSTANDING 
ACHIEVEMENT THAT [the petitioner] HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT HIS [sic] 
ABILITIES ARE EXTRAORDINARY AS HE [sic] HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT 
HE [sic] HAS MET AT LEAST THREE OF THE ENUMERATED CRITERIA AND 
DEMONSTRATED SUSTAINED NATIONAL ACCLAIM PLACING HIM [sic] AT 
THE TOP OF HIS [sic] FIELD. 
• • * 
We respectfully assert that clear evidence was submitted showing that in particular [the 
petitioner] has made great contributions to the field through both his [sic] research work 
as wel1 as clinical abilities, both wel1 attested to by both his [sic] peers with whom he 
[sic] has worked as wel1 as independent testimonials from prominent members of the 
field at prominent institutions. In addition [the petitioner] is a member of most of the 
most prominent medical societies in the country. General1y, these societies do not 
require outstanding achievements on the part of their members, but this is the norm with 
regard to American medical societies we respectful1y assert. In addition, [the 
petitioner's] record of presentation at major conferences is very impressive. His [sic] 
work has also received attention in various media outlets. Furthermore he [sic] has 
judged the work of even senior peers on several levels. Also there are testimonials 
submitted showing that he [sic] has been indispensable member of his [sic] current 
department and institution. For these reasons, we respectfully he [sic] is an Outstanding 
physician and scientist and this has been demonstrated on the record submitted. 
Page 3 
Counsel does not specifically challenge any of the director's findings or point to specific errors 
in the director's analyses of the documentary evidence submitted for the categories of evidence 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Further, counsel does not explain how the specific documentary 
evidence submitted by the petitioner supports a finding of eligibility for the categories of 
evidence at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii) - (iv), (v), and (viii). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ I03.3(a)(l)(v) provides that "[a)n 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 a general statement asserting that the petitioner 
meets at least three of the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) and does not specify 
where the alleged error on the part of the director occurred. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. § I03.3(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.