dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences, Arts, Education, Business, And Athletics

.. 
identifying data de~ to 
pcvent clearly unw~te<l 
. ~of~a\pnvac) 
anv~ . Y"" ..... ~--
PUBLICCO'PY 
DATE: APR 1 9 2012 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 
Washington, 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)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF -REPRESENTED 
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)(I)(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 R1lew ~ 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
,r 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, on August 29, 2011, 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)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability. Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary 
ability by requiring through the statute that the petitioner demonstrate "sustained national or 
international acclaim" and present "extensive documentation" of his or her achievements. See 
section 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim 
through evidence of a one-time achievement, specifically a major, internationally recognized 
award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten categories of specific 
evidence. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish the basic 
eligibility requirements. 
In the director's decision, the director thoroughly discussed the documentary evidence submitted 
by the petitioner and determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for the awards 
criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the membership criterion 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the published material criterion pursuant 
to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the judging criterion pursuant to the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the original contributions criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the scholarly articles criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi), the artistic display criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(J)(vii), and the leading or critical role criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Moreover, the director conducted a final merits determination in accordance 
with Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) and determined that the petitioner failed 
to demonstrate a (1) "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); 
and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, the petitioner claimed in part 3 on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion: 
The applicant believes that she has and will continue to have extraordinary ability 
in the sciences, art, education, business and athletics. The applicant did her best 
in her original application to demonstrate that she has sustained national or 
international acclaim and that her achievements have been recognized in the field 
of expertise. The applicant believes that she is one of the small percentages [sic] 
who have risen on the very top of her field of endeavor. The applicant plans to 
continue in her area of extraordinary ability and will benefit the United States 
throughout her entire life. Please refer to the original application and to my 
answer to the RFE letter, that was received by USCIS on August 17, 2011. 
Page 3 
Rather than challenging any of the director's specific findings, the petitioner makes general 
assertions without explaining how the conclusions of the director were incorrect as a matter of 
law or statement of fact. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § I03.3(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 
case, 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. Again, the petitioner offers no argument that 
demonstrates error on the part of the director based upon the record that was before her. 
As stated in the regulation at 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. As the petitioner did not contest any of the specific findings of the director 
and offers no substantive basis for the filing of the appeal, the regulations mandate the summary 
dismissal of the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.