dismissed O-1A Case: Computer Programming

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearly unw~ted
invasionofpersonalpI'i.VSY
PUBLICCOJ!'i
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000
Washington, DC 20529
u.s.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
FILE: WAC 06 237 50644 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: SEP 25 2007
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: 0 (a)(15)(O)(i) of the Immigration and
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office.
~~~obert P. Wiemann, Chief
/ Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
WAC 06 237 50644
Page 2
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The matter is
now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed.
The petitioner is an Internet services and telecommunications finn. The petitioner seeks 0-1 nonimmigrant
classification of the beneficiary, as an alien with extraordinary ability under section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i), in order to employ him temporarily
in the United States as a lead programmer for a period of three years at an annual salary of $95,000.
The director denied the petition, fmding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has received
sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of his
field of endeavor. The director rejected counsel's repeated attempts to have the beneficiary's occupation,
computer programming, classified under the arts rather thanthe sciences - a material issue because the regulatory
standards for aliens of extraordinary ability in the arts differ from those relating to other fields, including science.
8 c.P.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v) states, in pertinent part, "[ajn officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily
dismiss any appeal when the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or
statement of fact for the appeal."
The petitioner's submission on appeal is virtually identical to the petitioner's prior submission in response to
a request for evidence, which, in turn, largely repeated arguments and evidence repeated from the initial
submission. The director addressed the petitioner's evidence in detail in the denial notice. Counsel, on
appeal, does not offer any specific discussion of the director's fmdings. Repetition is not rebuttal, regardless
of the quantity of material redundantly offered on appeal, and counsel cannot overcome the director's specific
findings simply by repeating arguments that the director already discussed and found wanting.
The only new statement on appeal, among otherwise repeated claims and arguments, is counsel's assertion
that the director's decision was "arbitrary, irrational, and capricious." This is a general statement that makes
no specific allegation of error. Counsel does not elaborate as to how the decision was arbitrary, irrational, or
capricious, and simply using those terms as catchwords does not compel appellate review. The bare assertion
that the director somehow erred in rendering the decision is not sufficient basis for a substantive appeal.
Inasmuch as counsel has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact as a
basis for the appeal, the appeal must be summarily dismissed.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.