dismissed EB-1A Case: Acting

(b)(6)
j 
DATE: OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
APR 0 1 2013 
INRE: PETITIONER: 
BENEFICIARY: 
,(!,S. Dqiar~:e11t or. ~oineland Security . 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC . 20529-2090 
. U~S~ Citi,zeilship 
·and 1111migration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b )(1 )(A) of the Immigra'tion and Nationality Act, 8 U .S.C. § 1153(b )(1 )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF 
PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: . 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. · All of the documents 
related to this matter have been retuni.ed to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. . · 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law . in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information 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 I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found ·at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please b~ aware that 8 C.F.R. §.103.5(a)(1)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
_)/({3_ ' 
~~ 
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
.DISCUSSION: The Director, Tex·as Service Center, denied the employment-:based immigrant visa 
petition on November 19, 2012. Tfie petitioner, who is also the beneficiary, appealed the decision to 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on December 21; 2012. The appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
In part 6 of the petition, the petitioner indicates that he is seeking classification as an ''alien of 
extraordinary ability" as an actor, pursuant -to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). In part 3 of the Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
Form I-290B, "Basis of the Appeal or Motion," counsel.states, in its entirety: 
This matter .is being appealed as the applicant herein, a self-petitioner, is in fact an 
alien of extraordinary ability. He will continue to work in the field of endeavor in 
this country and in fact has done so pursuant to the grant of an 0 visa. · He will 
propectively [sic] benefit the United States with hsi [sic] presence. Moreover, the 
application as well as the Response to the RFE [Request for Evidence] contain 
sufficient evidence to establish that he has met at least 3 of the requitrements [sic] of 
the list of ten. · 
In part 2 of the Form I-290B, Which is dated December 20, · 2012, counsel indicates that his "brief 
and/or additional evidence will be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. As of this date, more than 
three months later neither counsel nor the petitioner has filed a brief or additional e:Vidence. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v) provides, in pertinent part, the AAO "shall summarily 
dismiss any appeal when the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusi.on of 
law or statement of fact for the appeal." 
In this case, neither the petitioner nor counsel has spe~ifically identified an erroneous conclusion of law 
or statement of fact in the director's November 19, 2012 adverse decision. Instead, on appeal, without 
specifically identifying which criteria the petitioner meets, counsel asserts in a conclusory manner 
that the petitioner "is in fact an alien of extraordinary ability." Counsel's mere assertion that the 
petitioner is eligible for the visa category sought, without specifically identifying or providing 
support establishing any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact, does not trigger· the AAO 
to conduct a full analysis of all the criteria, or a review of the director's decision. See Toquero v. 
INS, 956 F.2d 193, 195 (9th Cir. 1992); Matter of Lozada, 191. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988); Matter 
of Valencia, 19 I. & N. Dec. 354 (BIA 1986); see also Desravines v. United States Atty Gen., No. 
08-14861, 343 F.. App'x 433, 435 (11th Cir. 2009) (finding that issues not briefed on appeal by a pro 
se litigant are deemed abandoned); Tedder v: F.M.C. Corp., 590 F.2d 115, 117 (5th Cir. 1979) 
(deeming abandoned an issue raised in the statement of issues but not anywhere else in the brief). 
As counsel has failed to specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for 
the appeal, the appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed, pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(1)(v). 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
· ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.