dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

DATE: 
NOV 0 7 2012 
IN RE: 
Ollice: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. l)cpartml'l1t of Homeland Security 
II :-., ('ili/enship and llllilligraliull Service" 
J\dlllillisirali\"c /\ppcals O!!icC" (AAO) 
2() 1\.1:1"<":lciJu'-.e!l'" !\\'l' .. N,W MS 2()lJ{) 
\Vaslllnglull,l)( 2052lJ-2()lIU 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuallt ttl Section 
203(h)( I )(A) 01 the Immigration and Nationality Act, X U.s.c. ~ 115J(h)( I )(A) 
ON I3EHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed plcase lind the decision 01 thc Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All 01 the documents 
related to this matter have heen returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please he advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you helieve the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, Of you have addilional 
informatioll 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 1-290U, Notice of Appeal Of Motion, with a 1'ce of 5630. The 
specific requirements lor filing such a motion can he found at R C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not tile any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that K C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires any motiDn to he filed within 
30 days of the decision that the mol ion seeks to feconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
pZf-
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 beforc 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 dircctor dctwnincd ellat the petitioner had not eswblished the requisite extraordinary ability 
and failed to submit extensive documentation of his sustained national or international acclaim. 
On appeal, the petitioner, through counsel, fails to specifically address the rcasons staled for Ihe denial 
and to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact on the part of the director. Instead, 
counsel resubmits the same brief he submitted in response to the director's Notice 01' Intent to Deny 
(NOrD), with a Cew quotes Irom the director's denial notice added in a handful of places bUI no new 
response to thosL' quotes. The appellate brief, as a near verbatim copy of the brief responding to the 
NOrD, consislently refers to new evidence being submitted that, in fact, the petitioner submitted 
previously and which the director considered in his final decision, 
As stated in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)( I lev), 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. A brief that is essenlially a copy of the brief submitted in response to the NOrD does not 
identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement in the denial. It is insufficient to 
merely assert an improper conclusion on the director's part. Cf Matter of fla/ellcia, 19 f&N Dec. 
354 (BIA 1(86) (citing Reves-Mendoza v.INS, 774 F.2d 1364 (9th Cir. 1(85)), Rather, it should be 
stated whether Ihe error relates to grounds of statutory eligibility or to Ihe exercise of discretion. Id. 
Furthermore, it should be clear whether the alleged impropriety in Ihe decision lies with the facl 
finders interprelation of Ihe facts or an application of legal standards. Id. Where a question of law 
is presented, supporting aUlhority should be included, and where the dispute is on the facts, there 
should be a discussion of the particular delails contested. ld, See also Sallo v. Holder, 331 F. App'x 
799, 800 (2d Cir. 2(09) (finding that an alien who merely asserts Ihat: "[tJhe Immigration Judge 
erred on the facts and the law in denying relief pursuant to Immigration and Naturalization Section 
208 and 243(h)," Calls far short DC the standard for specificity on appeaL) The resubmission of the 
NOlO brief answers none of Ihese questions regarding Ihe director's final decision. 
The only new discussion in the appellate brief relates to translations. "Petilioners and applicants I(lr 
immigralion benefits are required by regulation to provide certified English translations of any foreign 
language documents they submit." Matter of' Nevarez, 15 I&N Dec. 550, 551 (BIA 1976) (citing 
tl C.F.R. § 103.2(b), now promulgated at tl C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3)) which states: "Any document 
containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language 
translation which the translalor has certified as complete and aCCurate, and by the translator's 
ccr1ilication that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English." The 
language utilized wilhin the regulalion implicitly precludes a single certificalion Ihat validates several 
Iranslated forms of evidence unless the cerlification specifically lists the translated documents, Without 
a single translator's certilication for each foreign language form of evidence, or a translalor's 
Page 3 
cenification specifically listing the documents it is validating, lhe certifications CilnllO! be regarded 10 be 
cer!ifying any specific form of evidence, The final determination of whether evidence meelS the plain 
language requirements of a regulation lies with USC1S, SCI' Matter oj' Caron Il11cmariolla/, 19 I&N 
Dec. 79 L 795 (Comm'r 1988) (Jinding that the appropriate entity to detcrmine eligibility is USCIS). 
Within the director' s decision. he notified the petitioner that her translated evidence did not meet the 
regulatory requirements stating: "All supplementary documents are not accompanied by English 
translations. Because the petitioner failed to submit certified translations of fhe documents, USCIS 
cannot detennine whe!her the evidence supports the self-petitioner claims." On appeal. the petitioner 
failed to address or remedy this evidentiary deficiency. Therefore, none of the evidence submitted that 
contains a foreign language bears any evidentiary value and the AAO considers this clement of the 
director's decision to be ahandoned. Seplllveda v. U.S. Arty Gen., 401 F.3d 122", l22tl n. 2 (1 lth Cir. 
2(05); Hris/ov I'. Roark. No. 09-CV-273 1201 1,2011 WL 47lltltl5 at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2(11) 
(the court tClUnd the plaintitfs claims to he abandoned as he failed to raise !hem on appeal to the 
AAO). 
In this instance, the petltlOner. through counsel's rctilling of a prevIous brief the director already 
considered, has not sufficiently identified a basis for the appeal. The petitioner does no! 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 in the denial rather than in the NOlO. the appeal must be 
summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.