dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLlCCOPY 
LS. I)cpal1nH.'nt of Homdand Sccllril~ 
l .S. ( itih'llship ;jlld Immigration Sen il;,;;' 
/\drninislr,llivc ;\rpcais Olli{;c (.-\:\0) 
~(l Ma"s<lc!lIlseU" :\\1.: .. ~.W., \1'-; 2(NO 
W,hhill",WIL DC 20529-20<)0 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: SEP 11 2012 Office: TEXAS 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)(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 AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or YOll 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)(I)(i) requires any motion to be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Aownc{~ 
I Perry Rhew 
~ Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.~o\' 
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)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § I I 53(b)(l)(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 he was among that small percentage at the very top of his field of 
endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
On appeal, the petitioner states: 
THE RECORD REFLECTS [the petitioner's] EXTRAORDINARY ABILITY IN HIS 
FIELD OF EXPERTISE WITH DEMONSTRATED SUSTAINED NATIONAL 
ACCLAIM. 
[The petitioner] has served as ajudge of the work of others in his field. 
[The petitioner'S] research has been selected for presentation at leading organizations. 
[The petitioner's] research has been selected for publication in prestigious journals. 
[The petitioner] has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations that have a 
distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner 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, the petitioner does not explain how the specific 
documentary evidence that he submitted supports a finding of eligibility. A passing reference 
without substantive arguments is insufficient to raise that ground on appeal. Desravines v. Us. 
Ally. Gen., 343 Fed.Appx. 433, 435 (II th Cir. 2009). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(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 general statements asserting that the petitioner has demonstrated 
sustained national acclaim and that he meets various categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3), but it does not specify where the alleged error on the part of the director occurred. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(I)(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. 
Page 3 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.