dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandknmigrationServices
identifying data deleted to 4//ice orddminis'ra'ive Avveas Ms 2090
Washington.DC 20529-2090
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy U.S.Citizenshipand Immigration
PUBLICCOPY services
FILE: Office: TEXASSERVECECENTER Date
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
APPLICATION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien WorkerasanAlien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
§ I153(b)(I)(A)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof the AdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase. All of thedocuments
relatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedtotheofficethatoriginaHydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believethe law was inappropriatelyappliedby us in reachingour decision,or you haveadditional
information that you wish to haveconsidered,you may file a motion to reconsideror a motion to reopen. The
specific requirementsfor filing such a requestcan be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be
submittedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcasebyfiling aForml-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion.
Thefeefor a FormI-290Bis currently$585,but will increaseto $630on November23,2010. Any appealor
motion filed on or after November 23, 2010 must be filed with the $630 fee. Pleasebe aware that 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthat any motion must be filed within 30 daysof the decisionthat the motion seeksto
reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscus.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: Theemployment-basedimmigrantvisapetitionwasdeniedby theDirector,Texas
ServiceCenter,andis now beforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO) on appeal.Theappeal
will besummarilydismissed.
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-basedimmigrant pursuant to section
203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A),asanalien
of extraordinaryability. Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionerhadnot establishedextraordinary
abilitythroughextensivedocumentationandsustainednationalor internationalacclaim.
Congressseta veryhighbenchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryability by requiringthroughthestatute
that the petitionerdemonstratethe alien's"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim"andpresent
"extensivedocumentation"of the alien'sachievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of the Act and
8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).Theimplementingregulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)statesthatanaliencan
establishsustainednational or internationalacclaim through evidenceof a one-timeachievement,
specificallya major, internationallyrecognizedaward. Absentthe receiptof suchan award,the
regulationoutlinestencategoriesof specificobjectiveevidence.8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)through(x).
The petitionermustsubmitqualifying evidenceunderat leastthreeof the ten regulatorycategoriesof
evidenceto establishthebasiceligibility requirements.
On May 28, 2009,the petitionersubmitteda FormI-140, ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien Worker,a
statementandadditionalevidence.On July 23, 2009,the directorissueda noticeof intentto deny
(NOID). On August21, 2009,thepetitionerfiled a responseto the NOID. Thedirectordeniedthe
petitionon August27,2009andthepetitionersubmitteda timely FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor
Motion on September21, 2009. The director's decisioncontaineda thoroughevaluationand
discussionof evidenceunderall the criteria. In his denial,the directoraddressedthe petitioner's
documentaryevidenceasit relatedto five of the tencriteriapursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§
204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the director discussedthe petitioner's documentaryevidencerelating to
the lesserawardscriterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i),the membershipcriterion pursuantto the
regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the publishedmaterial aboutthe alien criterion pursuantto
the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii),the judging criterion pursuantto the regulationat 8
C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv),andtheoriginalcontributioncriterionpursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(v).
Onappeal,counselfailsto specifyhowthedirectormadeanyerroneousconclusionof lawor statement
of factin denyingthepetition. In hisbriefonappeal,counselgenerallyrecitesthefactsandprocedural
historyof thecasebut offers no specificargumentor detail on appeal. Counselstatedthatthedirector
abusedhis discretionby denyingthe petitioner'spetitionand"ignoredor misevaluated"muchof the
evidencesubmitted.Althoughcounselvaguelyreferredto evidenceof thepetitioner'sprizes,published
articlesandevidenceofjudging,hefailedto specificallyaddressanyof thedirector'sdeterminationsor
to provideanyspecificargumentdetailingthedirector'sallegederrors.Theunsupportedstatementsof
counselonappealor in amotionarenot evidenceandthusarenot entitledtoanyevidentiaryweight.
SeeINSv. Phinpathya,464U.S.183,188-89n.6(1984);Matterof Ramirez-Sanchez,17I&N Dec.
503(BIA 1980).Counselprovidednofurtherevidenceon appeal.
Regulationsat8 C.F.R.§ 103.3(a)(1)(v)state,in pertinentpart:
Page3
An officer to whomanappealis takenshallsummarilydismissanyappealwhen
the party concernedfails to identify specifically any erroneousconclusionof law
or statementof fact for the appeal.
In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenof provingeligibility for thebenefitsoughtremainsentirely
with thepetitioner.Section291of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361.Inasmuchasthepetitionerhasfailedto
identify specificallyan erroneousconclusionof law or a statementof fact in this proceeding,the
petitionerhasnot sustainedthatburden.Therefore,theappealwill besummarilydismissed.
ORDER: Theappealis summarilydismissed.