dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

h1enmVing:.:bhl deleted to 
Fi'cveni .;;IUi1'ly "w.w[m'auted . . ,. " mvumon 3r i}(;l'Wn3. privacy 
PUBLlCCOPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N. W", MS 20~O 
Washington, DC 20529·2090 
:~.;:i ~~ i~:~~~:Fon 
'"" /.f/ Services '~ND s't,', 
DATE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
DEC 1 6 lOll 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. § lI53(b)(l)(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. § \03.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
ThankY0t? 
I·ft, 
"",- " )~, . 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
wwwouscis.gov 
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 summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(I)(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 decision 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 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: 
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. 
USC/S, 596 F.3d 1115, C.A.9 (Cal), March 4,2010 (No 07-56774) and the Interim Policy 
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, 560 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)(I)(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 her appeal. As stated in 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v), an appeal shall be summarily 
Page 3 
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.