dismissed O-1A Case: Engineering

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave , N W , Rm A 1042 
Wa5hlngton. DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Irnmigratioii 
Services 
FILE: SRC 04 167 5 1 195 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immiigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1101(a)(15)(0(i) 
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. 
k&-AuAXw 
eobert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 04 167 51195 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant 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 summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner is a porcelain and ceramic tile importer/producer that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a 
ventilated tile design engineer for a period of three years. The director denied the petition, finding that the 
petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary satisfied the regulatory standard for an alien with "extraordinary 
ability in the field of business, specifically engineering.'' 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts: 
The Service misapplied its discretion in finding that it had not been established that the beneficiary 
has extraordinary ability in the field of science. More particularly, the Service stated on page 2 line 20 
of the denial that it found 'the beneficiary ineligible for O Classification based on insufficient 
documentation to show that . . . he has the requisite sustained acclaim in the field of business.' The 
petition was based upon the beneficiary having extraordinary ability in the field of science anti not 
business. Therefore the Service cannot be said to have applied its mind to the matter correctly when it 
examined the petition against the backdrop of business as opposed to science. 
Section 1 Ol(a)(I 5)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 l(a)(15)(0)(i), provides 
classification to a qualified alien who has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts. education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim or, with regard to motion 
picture and television productions, has a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement. and whose 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation, and seeks to enter the United 
States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability. 
Counsel's assertion is not persuasive. The standard and evidentiary criteria for aliens of extraordinary ability in 
the field of science is the same as the standard for aliens of extraordinary ability in the field of business. 8 C.F.R. 
$9 2 14.2(0)(3)(ii) and (iii). It is noted that the director evaluated the evidence on the record to determine whether 
the beneficiary had established that he is recognized as being among a small percentage at the very top of the field 
of engineers. The director considered all the evidence on the record, without regard as to whether it related to the 
field of science or business. The director referred to the fields of business and science interchangeably. The 
petitioner bases its appeal on a question of semantics, rather than one of fact or law. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part: 
An 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. 
Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact 
in this proceeding, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.