dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: EAC 03 012 51382 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: HAY 2 5 2005 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
- 
5~obert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 03 012 51382 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
the arts. 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, the petitioner states: "Much has changed in my position in the last two years since I first filed this 
case. If given time, I feel that I would be able to satisfy the requirements of the USCIS." 
A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. Subsequent developments in the petitioner's 
career cannot retroactively establish that he was already eligible for the classification sought as of the filing date. 
See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45 (Corn. 1971). 
The petitioner indicated that a brief and/or evidence would be submitted to the AAO within sixty days. The 
appellate submission was unaccompanied by arguments or evidence addressing the pertinent regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3). The appeal was filed on October 4, 2004. The petitioner, through his 
unaccredited representative, subsequently submitted a letter acknowledging that the petitioner had not 
submitted a brief and/or evidence. As of this date, more than seven months after the appeal was filed, the 
AAO has received no documentation challenging the director's findings. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(l)(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. 
The petitioner has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided any additional 
evidence. The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.