dismissed EB-1A Case: Art Direction

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarr~tec 
invasion of personal pnvac) 
PUBLIC COpy 
FILE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
u.s. Department 01" Homeland Securit) 
{I.S. Cili.-':cnship and Immigration SCf\'icc~ 
Office ojAdmillisfl'lllil'(, A!)!)(!(/1.1 MS 209() 
\Vashington. DC 20529-109() 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Orficc: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DateDEC 08 2010 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)( I )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; 8 U.s.c. § I 153(b)( I )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your casco All of the 
documcnts related to this matter have been returned 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 law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision. or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider Of a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B. Notice of Appeal or 
Motion. with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 c.r.R. § I 03.5(a)( I )(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you. 
~
Q{fldJ1tlL 
erry Rhew 
Chief~ Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, on February 3, 2009, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Otlice (AAO) 
on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(1 )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1 )(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability as an art director. The director determined that the petitioner had 
not established the requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive documentation 
of his sustained national or international acclaim. In his denial. the director addressed the 
petitioner's documentary evidence as it related to five of the tcn criteria pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the director discussed the petitioner's 
documentary evidence relating to the awards criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), the original contributions criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), the artistic exhibitions or showcases criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii), the leading or critical role criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), and the high salary criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
On appeal. rather than challenging any of the director's specific findings, counsel submits a letter 
in which he references an additional letter that has been submitted to supplement the record. 
Counsel states: 
As evidence that [the petitioner's] achievements have been recognized in the field 
of expertise, we submit enclosed an expert opinion letter from 
serving at the professional level in Studio and Graphic Arts, and art-making 
experience is qualified as a Recognized Authority in Art and Art Education and 
therefore has the authority to determine whether or not an individual possesses 
extraordinary ability. 
Based on his evaluation of [the petitioner's] credentials, 
that [the petitioner] is a preeminent Mexican Advertising Designer and Animator 
whose exceptional artistic and design abilities have led to recognition of him by 
international experts as a preeminent international designer and animator. Based 
on Ithe petitioner's] achievements and qualifications has 
determined that [the pctitioner] is a professional of national and international 
achievement whose art is making major and significant contributions to the field 
of Advertising Design/Animation, and therefore is an artist of extraordinary 
ability. [The petitioner's] accomplishments attest to his original contribution of 
major significance in his field and sets a standard which many professionals in the 
field of Advertising Design/Animation aspire in their careers. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) provides that "[a]n officer to whom an appeal is taken 
shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party concerned fails to identify specifically any 
Page 3 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal." In this casc, counsel has not 
identified as a proper basis for the appeal an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in 
the director's decision. Instead, counsel submits a single letter from who was 
asked by counsel to review selected documentary evidence and provide his professional opinion. 
It does not that aware of the petitioner prior to being contacted by 
counsel. 'nation that the petitioner is an alien of extraordinary 
ability is not based on his prior recognition of the petitioner but merely on the evaluation of the 
documents given to him by counsel. Again, the letter hom otTers no 
explanation that demonstrates error on the part of the director based upon the record that was belore 
him. Moreover, in counsel's brief. he only mentions the petitioner's eligibility as it relates to the 
original contributions criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). Counsel 
failed to even mention on appeal the other four criteria addressed by the director in his decision. 
Accordingly, we deem those issues to be abandoned. See Sepulveda v. u.s. AII'y Gen.. 401 F.3d 
1226. 1228 n. 2 (11 th Cir.2005). Even if counsel were to prevail on the single issue raised on 
appeal. and we do not imply that he would, such a conclusion would not overcome the director's 
ultimate conclusion that the petitioner does not meet any of criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), of 
which an alien must meet at least three. 
As stated in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.3(a)(I )(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed 
if the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement 
of fact for the appeal. As counsel does not contest the director's findings and offers no 
substantive basis tor the filing of the appeal. the regulations mandate the summary dismissal of 
the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.