dismissed EB-1A Case: Ship Modeler

, U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationsèmcc
AdministrativeAppealsOn'ice(AAO)
20 MassachuscusAve N.W.. MS 2090
Washinelon.DC 2n5242090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: Office: TEXASSERVICECENTER
DEC072012
IN RE:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien Workerasan Alien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decisionof the AdministrativeAppealsOffice in your case. All of the
documentsrelatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Please
beadvisedthatanyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
[f you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional
information that you wish to haveconsidered,you may file a motion to reconsideror a motion to reopen
in accordancewith the instructionsonFormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion, with a feeof 5630. The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha motioncanbefoundat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.Do not file any motion
directly with the AAO. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(l)(i)requiresanymotionto befiled
within30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto reconsiderorreopen.
Thankyou,
RonRosenberg
ActingChief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The employment-basedimmigrantvisa petitionwasinitially approvedby the
Director,TexasServiceCenter. Onfurtherreviewof therecord,thedirectordeterminedthatthe
petitionerwasnot eligible for the benefitsought. Accordingly,thedirectorproperlyservedthe
petitionerwith noticeof intent to revokethe approvalof the immigrantvisa petition, andthe
reasonstherefore,andultimatelyrevokedthe approvalof thepetitionon March 10,2011. The
petitionerfiled a motion to reopen,which the director dismissedon May 13, 2011. The
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO) summarilydismisseda subsequentappealon MTrch22,
2012. Thematteris now beforethe AAO on motionto reopen.The motion will be dismissed
pursuantto 8 C.F.R.§§ 103.5(a)(1)(iii)(C),103.5(a)(2),and103.5(a)(4).
The petitioner seeksclassificationas an employment-basedimmigrant pursuantto section
203(b)(1)(A)of the ImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A),asan
alienof extraordinaryability asa shipmodeler.1Congresssetaveryhighbenchmarkfor aliensof
extraordinaryability by requiringthroughthe statutethat the petitionerdemonstratethe alienk
"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim"andpresent"extensivedocumentation"of the alien's
achievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of theAct and8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).U.S.Citizenship
andImmigrationServices(USCIS)andlegacyImmigrationandNaturalizationService(INS)have
consistentlyrecognizedthatCongressintendedto seta veryhigh standardfor individualsseeking
immigrantvisasasaliensof extraordinaryability. SeeH.R.723101"Cong.,2dSess.59(1990);56
Fed.Reg.60897,60898-99(Nov.29, 1991).Theterm "extraordinaryability" refersonly to those
individualsin thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento thevery top of the field of endeavor.Id.
and8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2). The implementingregulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)statesthatan
alien can establishsustainednationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-time
achievementof amajor,internationallyrecognizedaward.Absentthereceiptof suchanaward,the
regulationoutlinesten categoriesof specificobjectiveevidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)through
(x). The petitionermustsubmitqualifyingevidenceunderat leastthreeof the ten regulatory
categoriesof evidenceto establishthe basiceligibility requirements.In the director'snoticeof
revocationdatedMarch 10,2011,the directordeterminedthe petitionerhad failed to establish:
thathemeetsat leastthreeof theregulatorycategoriesof evidencepursuantto theregulationat
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3),thathe hassustainednationalor internationalacclaim,thathe is among
that small percentagewho haverisento the very top of the field, andthat he submittedclear
evidencethathewill continueto work in his areaof expertisein theUnitedStatesasrequiredby
theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(5).
Section205of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1155,states,in pertinentpart,thattheSecretaryof Homeland
Security "may, at any time, for what he deemsto be good and sufficient cause,revoke the
approvalof anypetitionapprovedby him undersection204."
Regardingthe revocationon notice of an immigrant petition under section205 of the Act, the
Boardof ImmigrationAppealshasstated:
According to Form 1-94, Arrival-Departure Record, the petitioner was last admitted to the United Stateson
September26,2002asaB-2nonimmigrantvisitorfor pleasure.
Page3
In Matter of Estime,. . . this Board statedthat a noticeof intentionto revokea visa
petitionis properlyissuedfor "goodandsufficientcause"wheretheevidenceof recordat
thetime thenoticeis issued,if unexplainedandunrebutted,wouldwarrantadenialof the
visapetitionbaseduponthepetitioner'sfailureto meethisburdenof proof. Thedecision
to revoke will be sustainedwherethe evidenceof recordat the time the decisionis
rendered,includinganyevidenceor explanationsubmittedby thepetitionerin rebuttalto
thenoticeof intentionto revoke,wouldwarrantsuchdenial.
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988)(citing Matter of Estime,19 I&N Dec.450
(BIA 1987)).
By itself,thedirector'srealizationthata petitionwasincorrectlyapprovedis goodandsufficient
causefor the revocationof the approvalof an immigrant petition. Id. The approvalof a visa
petitionvestsno rights in the beneficiaryof the petition,asapprovalof a visapetition is but a
preliminarystepin the visa applicationprocess. Id. at 589. The beneficiaryis not, by mere
approvalof thepetition,entitledto animmigrantvisa. Id.
In its March22, 2012decisiondismissingthe petitioner'sappeal,the AAO determinedthat the
petitionerhadfailedto identifyspecificallyanyerroneousconclusionof law or statementof factin
thedirector'sdecision.Accordingly,thepetitioner'sappealwassummarilydismissedpursuantto
theregulationat8C.F.R.§ 103.3(a)(1)(v).
On motion,counselallegesthat the petitionerreceivedineffectiveassistancefrom his previous
attorneyZCounselassertsthatbecausethepetitionerreceivedineffectiveassistancefrom previous
counsel,themattershouldbereopened,theappealshouldbesustained,andthedirector'sdecision
revokingtheapprovalof thepetitionshouldbewithdrawn.
Any appealor motionbasedupona claim of ineffectiveassistanceof counselrequires:(1) that
the claim be supportedby an affidavit of the allegedlyaggrievedrespondentsettingforth in
detail the agreementthat wasenteredinto with counselwith respectto the actionsto be taken
andwhatrepresentationscounseldid or did not maketo the respondentin this regard,(2) that
counselwhoseintegrity or competenceis being impugnedbe informed of the allegationsleveled
againsthim and be given an opportunity to respond,and (3) that the appealor motion reflect
whethera complaint hasbeenfiled with appropriatedisciplinary authoritieswith respectto any
violation of counsel'sethicalor legal responsibilities,andif not, why not. Matter of Lozada,
19I&N Dec.637(BIA 1988),aff'd, 857F.2d10(1stCir. 1988).
Accordingto 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(2),amotionto reopenmuststatethenew factsto beprovidedand
be supportedby affidavits or other documentaryevidence. Motions for the reopeningof
immigrationproceedingsaredisfavoredfor the samereasonsas arepetitionsfor rehearingand
motionsfor a newtrial on thebasisof newlydiscoveredevidence.INSv.Doherty,502U.S.314,
2Thepetitionerwasinitially representedby attorney andsubsequentlyrepresentedby . In this
decision,theterm"previouscounsel"shallrefert<
Page4
323(1992)(citingINSv.Abudu,485U.S.94(1988)).A partyseekingto reopenaproceedingbears
a"heavyburden."INSv.Abudu,485U.S.at 110.
In orderto properlyfile a motion,the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(iii)requiresthatthe
motion must be "[a]ccompaniedby a statementabout whetheror not the validity of the
unfavorabledecisionhasbeenor is the subjectof anyjudicial proceedingand.if so,the court,
nature,date,and statusor result of the proceeding." Furthermore,the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.5(a)(4)requiresthat "[a] motion that doesnot meet applicablerequirementsshall be
dismissed." In the presentmatter,the petitionerfailed to submita statementregardingif the
validity of thedecisionof theAAO hasbeenor is thesubjectof anyjudicial proceeding.
Notwithstanding the above, in support of the instant motion, the petitioner submits a signed
declaration,datedApril 23,2012,stating:
* * *
6. I first consulted with [previous counsel] about my options in light of the I-140
revocationat his office in the afternoonon March 15,2011.He was referredby a
friend.
7. Upon reviewingthe revocationdecision,[previouscounsel]indicatedthat my case
wascomplicatedbut hecouldsolveit for me. He alsoquoted$5,000for hisservices
of filing "appeals"with both Texas ServiceCenterand AdministrativeAppeals
Office ("AAO") andadditional$5,000contingentupontheapprovalof my greencard
shouldtheappealprevail.
8. What drove me to retain his serviceswas the commenthe made:"unlike some
attorneysout there,I would do my work oncebeingpaid." I signedthe Retainer
Agreementwith [previouscounsel]andpaid him $3,000asagreedupon.
9. The following day, I forwarded [previouscounsel]all the documentspertainingto my
I-140 petition aswell assupplementalevidence.
10.OnMarch23,2011,I paidadditional$2,000to [previouscounsel).
11.In April 2011, I requesteda copy of the appealfile from [previouscounsel].He
refusedto provide me any and askedme to wait for USCIS's final decision.
Therefore,I hadnocluewhathadbeenfiled with theUSCISby [previouscounsel].
12.On May 13,2011,TexasServiceCenterdeniedthe Motion to Reopenbecauseno
new factshadbeenprovidedto meetthe requirementsfor filing a motionto reopen.
Onthesameday,my I-485adjustmentapplicationwasdenied.
Page5
13.[Previouscounsel]advisedmeto file anappealwith AAO andpromisedmehis best
and most professionalservice. I was askedto wait patiently as AAO's processing
timewouldbearound12to 14months.
14.Subsequently,I triedto follow up with [previouscounsel]onthe statusof theappeal.
He becameincreasinglyannoyedandtold me not to call him any moredueto his
busycalendar.Heaskedmeto contacthiswife for anyfurtherquestions.
15.On March 22, 2012, AAO issueda decisionand summarilydismissedmy appeal
becauseof thelackof a legalbrief alongwith thesupportingdocuments.
16.Accordingto AAO, [previouscounsel]failed to submita legalbrief or anyadditional
documentsin supportof my appealasspecifiedonFormI-290B,Noticeof Appeal.
ThepetitioneralsosubmitsanApril 21, 2012letterof complaintconcerningpreviouscounsel's
servicesaddressedto the "StateBar of California"anda photocopyof anenvelopeaddressedto
previouscounsel. Below the petitioner'ssignatureat the closingof the letter appearsa copy
notationbearingpreviouscounsel'snameandaddress.Thereis no documentaryevidence(such
as a certified mail receipt) indicating that the letter was actually sent to previouscounsel
informinghim of theallegationsleveledagainsthim andthathewasaffordedanopportunityto
respond.Accordingly,thepetitioner'sevidencedoesnot meetthe secondrequirementsetforth
in Matter of Lozada.
TheApril 21,2012letterof complaintaddressedto theStateBarof Californiawasaccompanied
by a photocopyof an envelopeaddressedto the StateBar of California, but there is no
documentaryevidenceindicating that the letter was sentor that the complaint wasactually filed
with that organization. Accordingly, the petitioner's evidence does not meet the third
requirement set forth in Matter of Lozada. According to the State Bar of California,
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/,previouscounselhas"no publicrecordof discipline"and"no public
recordof administrativeactions"3
In Matter ofLozada, the Boardof Immigration Appealsstated:
Failure to specify reasonsfor an appealis groundsfor summarydismissal. . . . It would
be anomalousto hold that the sameaction or, more accurately,inaction that givesrise to
a summarydismissalof anappealcould,withoutmore,serveasthebasisof a motionto
reopen.To allow suchanomaly would permit an alien to circumvent at will the appeals
process,with its regulatorytime constraints,by the simple expedientof failing to
properly pursue his appeal rights, then claiming ineffective assistanceof counsel.
Litigants are generally bound by the conduct of their attorneys,absentegregious
circumstances.LeBlancv.INS,715F.2d685(1stCir. 1983).
Seehttp://membersxalbar.ca.eov/fal/Member/Detail/233945,accessedon December4, 2012.copyincorporated
into the recordof proceeding.
Page6
Id. at639.
The petitionerhasfailed to submit evidenceshowingthat the inadequatequality of previous
counsel'srepresentationresultedin dismissalof the appeal. Accordingly,the petitionerhasnot
demonstratedthat previous counsel's actionswere prejudicial and that previouscounsel's
assistancewasineffective. Basedupontherecordof proceedingbeforetheAAO, theAAO finds
thatthepetitioner'sineffectiveassistanceof counselclaimhasnotbeenestablished.
Counselalsoassertsthat the petitionermeetsthe regulatorycategoriesof evidenceat 8 C.F.R.
§§204.5(h)(3)(i)- (ix). As thepetitioner'sineffectiveassistanceof counselclaimhasnot been
established,theAAO will onlyconsiderargumentsandevidenceonmotionrelatingto thegrounds
underlyingtheAAO's mostrecentdecisiondatedMarch22,2012.Thepetitionerbearstheburden
of establishingthat the AAO's decision summarily dismissingthe appealpursuantto the
regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.3(a)(1)(v)wasin error. If the petitionerhadshownthatthe AAO
erredby summarilydismissingthe appealor thathereceivedineffectiveassistancefrom counsel,
thentherewould be groundsto reopenthe proceeding.The petitionerhasnot doneso in this
proceeding.
As previouslynoted,theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(4)statesthat"[a] motionthatdoesnot
meetapplicablerequirementsshallbedismissed."Accordingly,themotionwill bedismissed,the
proceedingswill notbereopened,andthepreviousdecisionsof thedirectorandtheAAO will not
bedisturbed.
ORDER: Themotionto reopenisdismissed,thedecisionof theAAO datedMarch22,2012is
affirmed,andtheapprovalof thepetitionremainsrevoked.