dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

U.S. Department of IIonteland Security 
U S C~t~zenship and Imnilgratlon Serwces 
Office ofAdrnln~straflve Appeals MS 2090 
identifying data deleted to 
 Wash~ngton, DC 20529-2000 
p;e\ic!-it dear! y enwarranted 
 U. S. Citizenship 
i3v:lsion i3f perscnal privacj 
 and Immigration 
gIJBLIC COPY Services 
2 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: A~R 2 0 2009 
- -. -- 
LIN 07 171 50820 
IN RE: 
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. 9 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. 
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. 9 103.5 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. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
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. fj 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in the arts. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the 
sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate 
her receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that she meets at least three of the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3). The director's decision provided a thorough discussion of the deficiencies in 
the evidence submitted by the petitioner for each of the pertinent regulatory criteria. 
On appeal, the petitioner states: 
Golden Eagle Award is a national award. Star Flower Prize is a national level award for 
documentaries. China TV Artist Association requires outstanding achievements for 
applicants to apply for membership. "Cultural Messenger" and "China International 
Academic Journal" are two trade journals in the field of culture and arts. Applicant has met 
the 3 categories of evidence: national award, outstanding membership and publication about 
applicant. 
The petitioner's appellate submission was unaccompanied by evidence to support her assertions. 
Simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 
1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). For 
example, there is no evidence establishing that the Golden Eagle Award and the Star Flower Prize 
were primarily attributable to the petitioner's work and were nationally recognized awards for 
excellence in the field, that the China TV Artist Association requires outstanding achievements of its 
members as judged by recognized experts in her field, and that Cultural Messenger and China 
International Academic Journal constitute major trade publications or some other form of major 
media. We find that the director properly considered the evidence submitted and appropriately 
addressed the evidence and arguments in his detailed discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
$3 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii) and (iii). On appeal, the petitioner does not specifically challenge any of the 
director's statements or his analyses of the evidence submitted for the preceding regulatory criteria. 
Further, the appellate submission was unaccompanied by arguments or evidence addressing any of 
the remaining regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
The petitioner indicated that she was not submitting a supplemental brief andlor evidence in support 
of her appeal. As stated in 8 C.F.R. 3 103.3(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. 
Page 3 
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.