dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: MAR 2 9 2012 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
AdminiWative Appcab Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washin£lon. DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203 (b)(1 )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(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 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 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 $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must 
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 
... 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was initially approved by the 
Director, Texas Service Center. Subsequently, the director issued a notice of intent to revoke 
(NOIR) the approval of the petition. In a Notice of Revocation (NOR), the director ultimately 
revoked the approval of the petition. The matter 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)(1)(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 NOIR and NOR sufficiently 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 he was among that small percentage at the very top of his field of 
endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1155, states, in pertinent part, that the Secretary of Homeland 
Security "may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the 
approval of any petition approved by him under section 204." 
Regarding the revocation on notice of an immigrant petition under section 205 of the Act, the 
Board of Immigration Appeals has stated: 
In Matter of Estime, ... this Board stated that a notice of intention to revoke a visa 
petition is properly issued for "good and sufficient cause" where the evidence of record at 
the time the notice is issued, if unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a denial of the 
visa petition based upon the petitioner's failure to meet his burden of proof. The decision 
to revoke will be sustained where the evidence of record at the time the decision is 
rendered, including any evidence or explanation submitted by the petitioner in rebuttal to 
the notice of intention to revoke, would warrant such denial. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988) (citing Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450 
(BIA 1987». 
By itself, the director's realization that a petition was incorrectly approved is good and sufficient 
cause for the revocation of the approval of an immigrant petition. Id. The approval of a visa 
petition vests no rights in the beneficiary of the petition, as approval of a visa petition is but a 
preliminary step in the visa application process. Id. at 589. The beneficiary is not, by mere 
approval of the petition, entitled to an immigrant visa. Id. 
On appeal, counsel states: 
We submit that the Service erred in unilaterally imposing novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth at 8 C.F.R. section 204.5 in opposition to Kazarian v. 
USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, C.A.9 (Cal), March 4,2010 (No 07-56774) and the Interim Policy 
Page 3 
Memorandum dated August 18, 2010 regarding Evaluation of Evidentiary Criteria in 
Certain Form 1-140 Petitions (AFM Update AD 10-41). The record demonstrates that the 
applicant has met at least three of the enumerated criteria. Furthermore, in Buletini v. 
INS, 860 F. Supp at 1233, the court stated "Once it is established that the alien's evidence 
is sufficient to meet three of the criteria . . . , the alien must be deemed to have 
extraordinary ability unless the INS sets forth specific and substantiated reasons for its 
finding that the alien, despite having satisfied the criteria, does not meet the extraordinary 
ability standard." We submit that by virtue of meeting at least 3 of the enumerated 
criteria, [the petitioner] qualifies for the instant classification. 
Counsel's comments do 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 
documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner supports a finding of eligibility. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(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 petitioner's appellate submission offers only a general 
statement asserting that the petitioner meets at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) 
and does not specify where the alleged error on the part of the director occurred. Moreover, the 
appellate submission was unaccompanied by arguments or evidence addressing the regulatory 
criteria at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) which the petitioner claims to meet. 
Counsel indicated that the petitioner would not be submitting a supplemental brief and/or evidence 
in support of his appeal. As stated in 8 c.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(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 his eligibility for the 
classification sought. The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.