dismissed EB-1A Case: Traditional Uzbek Metal Embossing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 30, 2025 In Re: 36450536 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability in the field of traditional Uzbek 
metal embossing. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l l 53(b )(1 )(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can 
demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose 
achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Texas Service Center Director denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(petition), concluding the record did not establish that the Petitioner had a major, internationally 
recognized award, nor did he demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The 
Director further determined that the Petitioner misrepresented a material fact. The matter is now 
before us on appeal under 8 C.F .R. § 103.3. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate 
eligibility to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 
291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in 
this matter de novo. Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo 
review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
We adopt and affirm the Director's ultimate determination. See Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 
874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice 
of adopting and affirming the decision below "is not only common practice, but universally 
accepted"). 
The Director first issued a request for evidence, then a notice of intent to deny (NOID) outlining at 
least five factors that led them to conclude the petitioner misrepresented a material fact. The Director 
raised issues within an article titled, I I in the 
Yoshlik magazine. Those factors included the following: 
• According to the cover of the Yoshlikmagazine, the publication was issued in 2016; 
• The header of the page contained distinct and inconsistent text appearances ( e.g., the date in 
the upper left when compared to the text in the top right comer) making it appear the content 
had been altered and it did not display the entire year; 
• The photograph of the Petitioner holding art did not fit in the border of the article and it cut off 
words located in the heading; 
• The appearance of the page revealed that there may have been an original border and the article 
was seemingly transposed on top of it; and 
• The article's translation reflected the Petitioner took first place in a 2015 competition and 
participated in another exhibition in Chicago in 201 7, then became the owner of the relevant 
certificate. But it was not credible that the article published in 2016 would refer to events that 
occurred in 2017, more than a year after the article was published. 
The Petitioner responded to the NOID by offering a letter froml Ithe chief editor of 
the Republic of Uzbekistan Writers Union Youth Organization. I Iletter contained 
information relating to what appears to be a different publication than the magazine the Director 
questioned in the NOID. The original publication in question was named Yoshlik and the explanation 
letter froml Ireferred to a publication by the name of Eshlik. The Petitioner has not 
established that these are the same publications, and it is his responsibility to preponderantly 
demonstrate his claims are true and accurate. The evidence the Petitioner provided does not align with 
his statements, creating a disharmony between those claims and the documentation within the record. 
The Petitioner must resolve this incongruity in the record with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). As it stands the 
letter froml Iwill not aid the petitioner and demonstrating the evidence is probative in 
his favor. 
In addition to those shortcomings, within I I letter he did not address all of the factors 
that led the Director to allege the Petitioner misrepresented a material fact in the NOID. Again, it is 
the Petitioner's duty to provide statements and evidence that addresses all of the adverse factors or 
shortcomings as detailed within the NOID. And the Director denied the petition in part with a finding 
that the Petitioner misrepresented a material fact. 
On appeal, the petitioner neither mentions nor contests the Director's allegations that he 
misrepresented a material fact as was outlined in both the NOID and the denial notice. Instead, the 
Petitioner merely offers a statement similar to his statement presented in the NOID response by 
identifying the letter. 
The evidence the Petitioner identifies as addressing the Director's concerns that they misrepresented 
a material fact is inadequate. The Director did more than simply question one element of the 2016 
article in Yoshlik magazine, and instead they described at least five factors leading them to conclude 
the Petitioner misrepresented material facts. Because the Petitioner only cites to an inadequate letter 
from and the foreign national here failed to address the Director's findings of 
misrepresentation, he has abandoned or waived that issue here. See Matter of Zhang, 27 I&N Dec. 
569 n.2 (BIA 2019) (finding that an issue not appealed is deemed as abandoned); Matter of Valdez, 
27 I&N Dec. 496, 496 n.1 (BIA 2018); Matter of R-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012); 
Matter ofJ-Y-C-, 24 I&N Dec. 260,261 n.l (BIA 2007); Matter ofCervantes, 22 I&N Dec. 560,561 
n.1 (BIA 1999) Matter ofEdwards, 20 I&N Dec. 191, 196-97 n.4 (BIA 1990). 
The Director denied the petition based on two independent grounds: (1) the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate eligibility under at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x); 
2 
and (2) separately on a finding that the Petitioner misrepresented a material fact regarding to his 
evidence relating to the published material criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Therefore, the 
appellant here, must demonstrate that every stated ground for the denial was incorrect. However, the 
Petitioner only addresses item l listed above without refuting the Director's misrepresentation of a 
material fact finding under item 2. 
As a result, even if the Petitioner overcame the issues it addresses within the appeal brief (i.e., the 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x)), he still would not demonstrate that the petition 
should be approved. When an appellant fails to properly challenge one of the independent grounds 
upon which the Director based their overall determination, the filing party has abandoned any 
challenge of that ground, and it follows that the Director's adverse determination will be affirmed. It 
is unnecessary to analyze additional grounds when another independent issue is dispositive of the appeal. 
See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976); Green v. Attorney Gen. of US., 694 F.3d 503, 
508 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25-26 for the prospect that when an overall 
determination requires multiple independent requirements, the failure to satisfy one requirement 
negates the need to address the remaining requirements as agencies are not required to make "purely 
advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
In summary, the Petitioner has not addressed and overcome each of the dispositive elements within 
the Director's denial decision, and we will dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3