dismissed EB-1A Case: Scientific Research

U.S. I)epsrtment of Homeland Security 
[IS. Cili,.mshi~ and lmmirration Srrviccs 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly dnwmted 
invasion of personal pnvacy 
. 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
F1I.E: - Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: SEP 1 3 2010 
SRC 08 065 5 1450 
IN RE: 
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. 
5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INS'TRUCTIONS: 
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. 5 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-2908. Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $585. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(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. 
M"WiL (1 Perry R ew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
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 [J.S.C. 5 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. 3 204.5(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. 5 204.5(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 ba~ic eligibility requirements. 
On December 20, 2007, the petitioner submitted a Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, a 
statement and additional evidence. On January 8, 2009, the director issued a request for evidence 
(WE). On February 19. 2009. the petitioner filed a response to the RFE. The director denied the 
petition on April 30, 2009 and the petitioner submitted a timely Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion on June 2,2009. On the Form 1-290B, counsel stated that he would submit a brief or additional 
evidence within 30 days. As of this date, the AAO has not received any additional evidence from 
counsel or the petitioner. Therefore, the record is complete. On appeal the petitioner argues that she 
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. For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the director's decision 
and summarily dismiss the appeal. 
On the Form 1-290B. the petitioner fails to specify how the director made any erroneous conclusion of 
law or statement of fact in denying the petition. On the Form I-290B, counsel generally states that the 
director "overlooked andlor misapplied the weight [of the] evidence submitted regarding petitioner's 
awards, her authorship of scholarship [sic] articles, her critical role as a researcher for an organization as 
well as petitioner's original scientific contributions of major significance to her field." In his decision. 
the director specifically discussed all of the criteria noted by counsel on the Form I-290B. Counsel 
provides no argument regarding how the criteria were overlooked or misapplied by the director 
beyond his broad claim. Further. on appeal, counsel failed to adequately address the director's 
decision regarding 8 C.F.R. $ 204,5(h)(3)(i). (ii), (iii), (v). (vi), and (viii). 
'I'he regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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. 
Page 3 
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. $ 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