dismissed EB-1A Case: Scientific Research

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PWBtIC COPY 
FILE: 
IN RE: 
Office of~dmiiistrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 - 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
AUG 0 4 2010 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
APPLICATION: 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. 
9 1 1 53(b)(l )(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. fj 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 $585. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
!( Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska 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. $ 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the requisite 
extraordinary ability through extensive documentation and sustained national or international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(l)(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 objective 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. 
On August 10, 2008, the petitioner submitted a Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, a 
statement and additional evidence. On April 24, 2009, the director issued a request for evidence (RFE). 
On June 5, 2009, the petitioner filed a response to the RFE. The director denied the petition on July 9, 
2009 and the petitioner submitted a timely Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion on August 10, 
2009. On appeal the petitioner argues that he meets at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) for sustained national or international acclaim. 
On the Form I-290B, the petitioner fails to specify how the director made any erroneous conclusion of 
law or statement of fact in denying the petition and indicates that a statement is attached. Although the 
petitioner submitted a brief, he failed to specifically address the director's conclusions. In his 
statement on appeal, the petitioner generally addresses evidence already contained in the record of 
proceeding. The statement is essentially the same statement originally filed with the Form 1-140 and 
provides no argument regarding the director's specific findings. The petitioner also refers to the 
exhibits submitted with the Form 1-140 but again fails to address the director's determination regarding 
the evidence. 
Although the petitioner also provides additional evidence on appeal in the form of recent patent 
applications and manuscript reviews, such evidence cannot be considered because the events took place 
after the petitioner filed the Form 1-140. A petitioner must establish eligibility for the benefit he is 
seeking at the time that the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(1),(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 
I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971). A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an 
effort to make a deficient petition conform to U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) 
requirements. See Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm. 1998). In addition, 
although on appeal the petitioner claims that his work was cited "more than fifty (50) times" as 
opposed to the more than thirty times initially stated, the petitioner does not provide evidence of these 
Page 3 
additional citations and references the exhibit submitted with the Form 1-140.' Simply going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for the purpose of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. $j 103.3(a)(l)(v) state, in pertinent part: 
An 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 visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely 
with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $j 1361. Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to 
identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in this proceeding, the 
petitioner has not sustained that burden. Therefore, the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed. 
The AAO notes that one of the citations described as "selected citations in the [sic] high profile 
international journals and well[-]noted conference proceedings" indicates that the petitioner's work 
was used as part of the materials for a college course at the University of Maryland and not in a 
journal or conference as described in the statement.