dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)
20MassachusettsAve.,N.w.,MS2090
Washinton DC 2052-2090
U.S.ÜitizensI11p
and Immigration
Services
DATE: DEC 2 0 2012 OMee:NEBRASKASERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien WorkerasanAlien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto Section
203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct,8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCrIONS:
Enclosedpleasefindthedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOfficein yourcase.All of thedocumentsrelated
tothismatterhavebeenreturnedtotheofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthatanyfurther
inquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadetothatoffice.
If you believethe AAO inappropriatelyappliedthe law in reachingits decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,you mayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopenin
accordancewith theinstructionsonFormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,with afeeof $630.Thespecific
requirementsforfiling suchamotioncanbefoundat8C.F.R.§ 103.5.Donotfile anymotiondirectlywith the
AAO. Pleasebe awarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto be filed within 30 daysof the
decisionthatthemotionseekstoreconsiderorreopen.
Thankyou,
RonRosenberg
ActingChief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: Theemployment-basedimmigrantvisapetitionwasdeniedby theDirector,Nebraska
ServiceCenterandis nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) onappeal.Theappealwill
bedismissed.
Thepetitionerseeksclassificationasanemployment-basedimmigrantpursuantto section203(b)(1)(A)
of theImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct),8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A),asanalienof extraordinary
ability. Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionerhadnotestablishedtherequisiteextraordinaryability
andfailedtosubmitextensivedocumentationof hissustainednationalorinternationalacclaim.
Onappeal,thepetitioner,throughcounsel,failsto specificallyaddressthestatedreasonsfor thedenial
andto identifyanyerroneousconclusionof law or statementof factonthepartof thedirector.Instead,
counselsubmitsthesamebriefonappealthatheutilizedwithintherequestforevidence(RFE)response
with a new introductionbeing. Counselexplainsthathe is resubmittingthe RFE responsebrief on
appealbecausethedirectorcouldnotconsiderthepetitioner'sevidencethatpostdatedthepetitionfiling
date,concludingthattheAAO is abletoconsidersuchevidenceasthisoffice"is ableto conductaDe
NovoReviewofthepetitioner'scase."AccordingtoSoltanev.DOJ,381F.3d143,145(3dCir.2004),
theAAO maintainsdenovoreviewof all questionsof fact andlaw. Nevertheless,theAAO will not
considerevidencerelating to achievementsthat postdatethe petition's filing date as probative
evidence.A petitionermustestablisheligibility atthetimeof filing; apetitioncannotbeapprovedata
futuredateafterthepetitionerbecomeseligibleundera newsetof facts. 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(1),(12);
seeMatterofKatigbak,14I&N Dec.45,49 (Reg'lComm'r1971).Moreover,thedirector'sfinal
decisiondid not disregardall of theevidencesubmittedin responseto theRFEor counsel'sassertions
in theRFEresponsebrief. Counseldoesnot explainhow thedirector'sconclusionson theevidence
thatdoesnotpostdatethefilingof thepetitionwerein error.
Thereasonfor filinganappealistoprovideanaffectedpartywiththemeansto remedywhatheorshe
perceivesas an erroneousconclusionof law or statementof fact within a decisionin a previous
proceeding.See8 C.F.R.§ 103.3(a)(1)(v).Withoutsuchanerrorspecificallyidentifiedwithinthe
appeal,theaffectedpartyhasfailedtoidentifythebasisfor theappeal.If thepetitionerdoesnotexplain
the specificaspectsof the decisionthat he considersto be incorrect,he hasfailed to meaningfully
identifythereasonsfor takinganappeal.In ordertoreviewtheappeal,it wouldthereforebenecessary
to searchthroughtherecordandspeculateon whatpossibleerrorsthepetitionerclaims.Matterof
Valencia,19I&N Dec.354,355(BIA 1986).
It is insufficienttomerelyassertthatthedirectormadeanimproperdetermination.Withinanappeal,it
shouldbeclearwhethertheallegedimproprietyin thedecisionlieswith theinterpretationof thefactsor
theapplicationof legalstandards.Whereaquestionof lawis presented,supportingauthorityshouldbe
included,andwherethedisputeis on thefacts,thereshouldbea discussionof theparticulardetails
contested.Id. The regulationat 8 C.F.R.§103.3(a)(1)(v)allowsthe AAO to promptlydealwith
appealswherethereasonsgivenfor theappealareinadequatetoinformtheAAO of theparticularbasis
for theclaimthatthe director'sdecisionis wrong.Cf Matter of Valencia,19I&N Dec.at 355. The
petitionermust identify all of the errorsmadeby the directoras it relatesto the claimedcriteria.
Otherwise,theAAO mustspeculateonwhaterrorthepetitioneralleges.Theresubmissionof theRFE
Page3
responsebrief onappealis insufficientascounselhasnotidentifyanyerrorthatcanbeattributedto the
director'sdecision.
As statedin theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.3(a)(1)(v),anappealshallbesummarilydismissedif the
concernedpartyfailsto identifyspecificallyanyerroneousconclusionof lawor statementof factfor the
appeal.Cf Idy v.Holder,674F.3d111(1stCir. 2012)(whereanalienfailsto raiseanylegalissue
regardingtheBoardof ImmigrationAppealsdenialof aninadmissibilitywaiver,theCourtof Appealsis
deprivedof jurisdiction).SeealsoDesravinesv. U.S.Atty. Gen.,343F. App'x 433,435(1Ith Cir.
2009)(findingthatissuesnotbriefedonappealaredeemedabandoned);Tedderv.F.M.C.Corp.,590
F.2d115,117(5thCir. 1979)(deemingabandonedanissueraisedin thestatementof issuesbutnot
anywhereelsein thebrief). In thisinstance,thepetitionerhasnotsufficientlyidentifiedabasisfor the
appeal.As thepetitionerfailedto challengethedirector'sanalysisin thefinal decision,theappealmust
besummarilydismissed.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.