dismissed
EB-1A
dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences
Decision Summary
The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner failed to specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the director's decision. The petitioner's counsel attempted to argue for the use of 'comparable evidence' for the first time on appeal, but this was rejected as the regulation only allows this when the standard criteria do not readily apply to the occupation, which was not established.
Criteria Discussed
Comparable Evidence
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
U.S.DepartmentofHomelandSecurity U.S. CitizenshipandImmigrationServices identifyingdatadeletedto offic,,fssmini,,,,,,,,s,,,ni,uS2090 preVent Clearly unWalT8nggd Washington,DC 20529-2090 invasionofpersonalpnvacy U.S.Citizenship and Immigration Services yesuc cOPY FILE: Office: TEXASSERVICECENTER Date: NOV232010 IN RE: Petitioner: Beneficiary: PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien WorkerasanAlien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto Section 203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A) ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER: INSTRUCTIONS: Enclosedpleasefind the decisionof the AdministrativeAppealsOffice in your case. All of the documents relatedto this matterhavebeenreturnedto theoffice thatoriginally decidedyour case.Pleasebeadvisedthat anyfurtherinquiry thatyou might haveconcerningyour casemustbemadeto thatoffice. If you believethe law was inappropriatelyappliedby us in reachingour decision,or you haveadditional informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile amotionto reconsideror amotiontoreopen.The specific requirementsfor filing such a requestcan be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be submittedtotheofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcaseby filing aFormI-290B,Noticeof AppealorMotion. Thefeefor aFormI-290Bis currently$585,butwill increaseto $630onNovember23,2010.Anyappealor motion filed on or afterNovember23, 2010mustbe filed with the $630fee. Pleasebe awarethat 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthat anymotionmustbe filed within 30 daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto reconsiderorreopen. Thankyou, Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice www.uscus.gov Page2 DISCUSSION:The employment-basedimmigrantvisa petitionwas deniedby the Director,Texas ServiceCenter. The petitionerfiled an appeal,which the AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO) rejectedasuntimelyandreturnedto thedirectorfor treatmentasamotionto reconsider.Thedirector consideredthelateappealasa motionto reopenandreconsider,dismissedthemotion,andaffirmed denialof thepetition. Thematteris nowbeforetheAAO on appeal.Theappealwill be summarily dismissed. The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-basedimmigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct(theAct),8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A),asanalien of extraordinaryability in thesciences.Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionerhadnotestablished the requisiteextraordinaryability through extensivedocumentationand sustainednational or internationalacclaim. Onappeal,counselstates: Title 8 C.F.R.,Section8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)statesthatunder#4 thepetitionermaysubmit comparableevidenceto establishthebeneficiary'seligibility - this requirementwasfulfilled by numerouscertificates,diplomasandpublications. Hencethe overwhelmingevidenceat theinitial filing wasall provided. Decisionshouldbereversed.Thankyoufor yourtime. Thepetitioner'sinitial submission,responseto the director'srequestfor evidence,andmotiondid not previouslyrequestconsiderationof the petitioner's documentationas comparableevidence pursuantto 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(4). Counselraisesthis issuefor the first time in her argumenton appeal. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(4)allows for the submissionof "comparable evidence"only if thetencriteriaat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)"do not readilyapplyto thebeneficiary's occupation." The regulatorylanguageprecludesthe considerationof comparableevidencein this case,asthereis no evidencethateligibility for visapreferencein thepetitioner'soccupationcannot beestablishedby thecriteriaspecifiedby theregulationat 8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).Whereanalienis simplyunableto meetthreeof theprecedingregulatorycriteria,theplain languageof theregulation at8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(4)doesnot allow for thesubmissionof comparableevidence. The petitionerhas not establishedthat the director's latestdecisionwas incorrectbasedon the evidenceof recordatthetimethemotionwasdismissedandthedirector'sdenialof thepetitionwas affirmed. Counseldoesnot specificallychallengeanyof the director'sfindingsor his analysesof the evidencesubmittedfor the regulatorycriteria at 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3). Moreover,the latest appellatesubmissionwas unaccompaniedby argumentsor evidenceaddressingthe regulatory criteriaat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)which the petitionerclaimsto meet. Counselindicatedthatthe petitionerwouldnotbesubmittingasupplementalbriefor additionalevidence. As statedin 8 C.F.R.§ 103.3(a)(1)(v),anappealshallbesummarilydismissedif thepartyconcerned failsto identifyspecificallyanyerroneousconclusionof lawor statementof factfor theappeal. Page3 The petitionerhasnot specifically addressedthe reasonsstatedfor dismissalof the motion and denialof thepetition, andhasnot providedany additionalevidencepertainingto the classification sought.Theappealmustthereforebesummarilydismissed. ORDER: Theappealis dismissed.
Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial
MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.
Avoid This in My Petition →No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.