dismissed EB-1A Case: Research

(b)(6)
OCT 2 1 2013, 
DATE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE : Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washing ton, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:/Jwww.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
0~ :8 .• r~ .. {~· - . ~ 
Ron Ro-~enb~rg f:---
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be 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)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability. In a seven-page decision that addressed the petitioner's prior claims, the 
director determined that the petitioner had not established the requisite extraordinary ability and had 
not submitted extensive documentation of her sustained national or international acclaim. 
On appeal, counsel does not specifically address the reasons stated for the denial and does not 
identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact on the part of the director. Instead, 
counsel states that while the director correctly determined that the petitioner meets two of the 
necessary three criteria set forth at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), the petitioner also meets a third 
unidentified criterion, "if not more." Counsel concludes that the petitioner holds two doctorate 
degrees, is an accomplished researcher and teacher, and has risen to the top of her field. 
An appeal provides an affected party with the means to identify an erroneous conclusion of law or 
statement of fact within a decision. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). In order to review an appeal 
where the petitioner does not identify the bases for the appeal, it would be necessary to search 
through the record and speculate on what possible errors the petitioner claims. Matter of Valencia, 
19 I&N Dec. 354, 355 (BIA 1986). 
It is insufficient to assert that the director made an improper determination. Within an appeal, it 
should be clear whether the alleged impropriety in the decision lies with the interpretation of the 
facts or the application of legal standards. Where a question of law is presented, supporting 
authority should be included, and where the dispute is on the facts, there should be a discussion of 
the particular details contested. Matter of Valencia, 19 I&N Dec. 354, 355 (BIA 1986). See also 
Matter of Keyte, 20 I&N Dec. 158, 159 (BIA 1990) (finding that an appeal should be summarily 
dismissed where the applicants have offered only a generalized statement of their reason for the 
appeal and have neglected to specify whether the alleged error in the decision lies with the 
interpretation of the facts or the application of legal standards). See also Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N 
Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988) (finding that failure to specify reasons for an appeal is grounds for 
summary dismissal under regulations similar to those governing the AAO). 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) allows the AAO to deal promptly with appeals where the 
reasons given for the appeal do not inform the AAO of the particular basis for the claim that the 
director's decision 
is wrong. Cf. Matter of Valencia, 19 I&N Dec. at 355. 
As stated in the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the 
concerned party does not to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of 
fact for the appeal. Cf. Idy v. Holder, 674 P.3d 111, 116 (1st Cir. 2012) (where an alien fails to raise 
any legal issue regarding the Board of Immigration Appeals denial of an inadmissibility waiver, the 
Court of Appeals is deprived of jurisdiction). See also Desravines v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 343 F. App'x 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
433, 435 (11th Cir. 2009) (finding that issues not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned) ; Tedder 
v. F.M.C. Corp., 590 F.2d 115, 117 (5th Cir. 1979) (deeming abandoned an issue raised in the 
statement of issues but not anywhere else in the brief). In this instance, the petitioner has not 
identified a basis for the appeal. The petitionerdoes not contest the director's specific findings and 
offers no substantive basis for the filing of the appeal. As the petitioner did not provide any specific 
statement or argument regarding the basis of her appeal, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.