dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Aaueals MS 2090 
tdentifjring data UCKLCU LU 
greven t clearly tanwarran ted 
 U.S. Citizenship 
iwylasisr, of personal 
 and ~mmigration 
Services 
LIN 07 068 50662 
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. 3 1153(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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
~CWfl;k,, 
1 ohn F. Grissom 
Ii~cting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
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. $ 11 53(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in the arts. The Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, was filed on 
January 3, 2007. In Part 1 of the Form 1-140 petition, the petitioner listed an address of '- 
"' 
 On April 29, 2008, the director 
issued a request for evidence pertaining to the regulatory requirements at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3). The 
record reflects that the request for evidence notice was mailed to the address listed by the petitioner in 
Part 1 of the Form 1-140 petition.2 The petitioner failed to respond to the director's request for 
evidence. On July 11,2008, the director denied the petition finding that the evidence of record did not 
establish the petitioner's sustained national or international acclaim or that he is recognized as one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of his field. More specifically, the director found 
that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, 
or that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3). We further note 
that page 2 of the director's decision listed the specific requirements for supporting documents as set 
forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, the petitioner states: 
Your decision to deny the petition filed by me for classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability is based primarily on the statement that on 4/29/08, your office forward [sic] a "RFE," 
and that I failed to res ond to the request. In submission of my petition, I listed as my 
mailing address care of 
It is acknowledged that your letter of 4/29/08 was received by his office, and on 5/5/08, he 
forwarded a copy of the RFE to my address 
certified mail, return receipt requested. . . . A 
never delivered to my home address by the U.S. Postal Service, but rather the attachment 
shows that the letter was "unclaimed." Furthermore, it is evident from this communication 
that the letter of 5/5/08, was never returned to I cannot explain the failure to 
receive this letter, which obviously I would have responded to as soon as possible due to the 
importance of the matter. I can state that I am not aware of any notification left by the USPS 
reference to the letter of 5/5/08. Based on the above facts, and in the sense of fair play, it is 
kindly requested that this matter be re-opened, and a subsequent RFE be sent by your office 
with any instructions as to the information to be provided in support of the petition. 
Notices and decisions, when served by mail, must be sent to a person at his or her last known 
address. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5a(a)(l). In this instance, the petitioner acknowledges that the director's 
' Part 1 of the petitioner's Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, submitted on August 6, 2008 lists the same 
address. 
On appeal, the petitioner confirms that the notice was received at the address of record. 
Page 3 
request for evidence was received at the correct address as identified by the petitioner in Part 1 of the 
Form 1-140 petition. 
 Accordingly, the director hlly complied with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5a(a)(l). The problems arising from the exchange of documents between and the 
petitioner are irrelevant to this matter as they do not relate to any errors on the part of the director. 
Furthermore, contrary to the petitioner's first statement, the director's notice of denial was not based 
primarily on the petitioner's failure to respond to the request for evidence. Rather, the director's 
decision was based on the evidence of record and the merits of the petitioner's extraordinary ability 
claim. For example, the director's decision discussed the initial evidence submitted by the 
petitioner, such as the petitioner's RSA Student Design Award, and cited the deficiencies in that 
evidence as they relate to the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
At this point, the director's decision already having been rendered, the most expedient remedy for 
the petitioner's request that the matter be reopened is the full consideration on appeal of any 
evidence which the petitioner would have submitted in rebuttal to the director's observations and 
findings. The petitioner's appellate submission, however, was unaccompanied by arguments or 
evidence addressing the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) which the petitioner claims to 
meet. Further, the petitioner does not specifically challenge any of the director's findings or his 
analyses of the evidence submitted for the regulatory criteria. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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 pertaining to the classification sought. The appeal must therefore be summarily 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.