dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

PUBLIC Copy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
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. 
b&b 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: 
 The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the arts, pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A). The director 
determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to 
qualify for classification as an. alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel merely stated that he would submit a brief andlor evidence to the Administrative 
Appeals Office (AAO) within 30 days. Citizenship and Immigration Services received the appeal on 
November 7, 2005. As of September 15, 2006, over 10 months later, the AAO had received nothing 
further. Thus, on that date, this office contacted counsel by facsimile, advising that we had received no 
additional materials, inquiring as to whether anything had been submitted and requesting a copy of any 
additional materials submitted. The facsimile advised that failure to respond to our inquiry within five 
business days may result in the summary dismissal of the appeal. As of this date, approximately two 
weeks later, this office has received no response. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. 
 103.3(a)(l)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the party concerned 
fails to identifl specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 
Counsel here has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided any 
additional evidence. He has not even expressed disagreement with the director's decision. The appeal 
must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.