dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clcC\rly lmwarr~nted 
invasion of personal pnvacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: 
SEP 1 1 2012 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
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. § I IS3(b )(I)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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 AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(I)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that thc motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~(~ 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
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 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. The petitioner initially submitted 13 documents with no explanation as to how they relate to the 
evidentiary criteria for the classification sought. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x). On March 21, 
2011, the director issued a request for additional evidence (RFE), listing all of the evidentiary 
requirements. The petitioner responded with more documents, once again failing to explain how these 
documents relate to the evidentiary requirements for the classification sought. The director detennined 
that the petitioner had not established the requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive 
documentation of her sustained national or international acclaim. 
On appeal, the petitioner fails to specifically address the stated reasons within the denial and to identify 
any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact on the part of the director. Instead, she merely 
lists, for the first time, the evidence under each criterion that she asserts is applicable. She submits new 
evidence that the director either specifically requested in the RFE, some of which postdates the filing of 
the petition. The petitioner must establish eligibility as of the date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 
103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). The appeal is the 
first instance that the petitioner provided any guidance to USCIS as to which criteria each form of 
evidence applies. 
The director first acknowledged that the petitioner was the recipient of several prizes or awards, but 
noted the lack of evidence, such as media coverage of the accolades. On appeal, the petitioner mere! y 
reiterates the awards, implying that the awards themselves demonstrate their recognition despite the 
director's explanation in the RFE as to what types of evidence might show recognition. Simply listing 
evidence the director found insufficient without specifYing the director's error in reaching that 
conclusion is not a substantive assertion. 
The director also concluded that the record lacked any evidence that the petitioner was a member of a 
qualifying association pursuant to 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). On appeal, the petitioner for the first time 
specifies what evidence she previously submitted that she would like to be considered under this 
criterion without asserting any error on the director's part. Some of the evidence the petitioner 
discusses on appeal makes no reference to a "membership" and the remaining evidence makes no 
mention of the requirements for membership, a fundamental factor under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Regarding the published material criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the director concluded that no 
evidence was submitted relating to this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner provides new evidence of 
published material. The purpose of the RFE is to elicit further infonnation that clarifies whether the 
petitioner has established eligibility for the benefit sought as of the filing date of the petition. See 
8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(8) and (12). The petitioner's failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a 
material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). As in the 
Page 3 
present matter, where the director put the petitioner on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and gave 
the petitioner an opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for 
the first time on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988); Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). If the petitioner had wanted the director to consider the 
submitted evidence, she should have submitted the documents in response to the director's 
RFE. Id. Under the circumstances, the AAO will not consider the sufficiency of the evidence 
submitted on appeal. 
The director concluded that the record lacked any evidence applicable to the judging criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). On appeal, the petitioner submits new letters that reference teaching (not 
judging) duties after the date of filing. As stated above, this evidence cannot establish her eligibility as 
of the date of filing as required. See 8 c.F.R. §§ 103.2(b )(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 
45,49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). 
Finally, while the director considered the reference letters under the contributions criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) and explained why they did not demonstrate that her contributions were of major 
significance, the petitioner merely lists those letters on appeal without identifying any error in the 
director's analysis of those letters. 
As stated in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the 
concerned party fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the 
appeal. Cf Jdy v. Holder, No. 11-1078,2012 WL 975567 (1st Cir. Mar. 23, 2012) (where an alien fails 
to raise any legal issue regarding the Board of Immigration Appeals denial of an inadmissibility waiver, 
the Court of Appeals is deprived of jurisdiction). See also Desravines v. United States Attorney 
General, No. 08-14861, 343 F. App'x 433, 435 (II th Cir. 2009) (tinding that issues not briefed on 
appeal are deemed abandoned); Tedder v. F.M.c. Corp., 590 F.2d 115, 117 (5th Cir. 1979) (deeming 
abandoned an issue raised in the statement of issues but not anywhere else in the briet). In this instance, 
the petitioner has not sufficiently identified a basis for the appeal. The petitioner does not contest the 
director's specific findings and offers no substantive basis for the filing of the appeal. As the petitioner 
failed to challenge the director's analysis beyond merely asserting that the director reached the wrong 
conclusion, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.