dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration S e rvice ~ 
Office of Admini strative Appeals 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: MAY 0 8 2014 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner : 
Beneficiary : 
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. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I~290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision . Please review the Form . I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.P.R. §.- 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
~~-
Ron Rosenberg {1- · 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition and the 
matter 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)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary in the arts. The director determined that the petitioner had not met the requisite 
criteria for classification as an alien extraordinary ability. 
In Part 2 of the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, the petitioner checked box "B" indicating 
"[ m ]y brief and/or additional evidence will be submitted to the AAO within 30 days." 
Part 3 of the Form I-290B includes a space to "[p]rovide a statement explaining any erroneous 
conclusion of law or fact in the decision being appealed." The petitioner states: 
The USICS [sic] denied this petition to classify [the petitioner] as an Alien of Extraordinary 
Ability under Section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, [the 
petitioner] is eligible for this category. J 
[The petitioner] provided sufficient evidence to establish his eligibility for each of the 
criterion mentioned in his application. The evidence submitted meets the legal standard of 
the Policy Memo, USCIS, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 
Petitions, PM-602-0005.1 (Dec. 22, 2010) at 3, published on AILA InfoNet at Doc. No. 
11020231. Also see Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2010). 
Further legal arguments and any evidenee will be presented within thirty (30) days of this 
submission. 
The petitioner's statements fail to specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the 
director's decision. A passing reference without substantive arguments is insufficient to raise that 
ground on appeal. Desravines v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 343 Fed.Appx. 433, 435 (11th Cir. 2009). The 
petitioner does not specifically challenge any of the director's findings for the categories of evidence 
at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) or point to specific errors in the director's analyses of the documentary 
evidence. In addition, the petitioner does ·not explain how the sp~cific documentation that he 
submitted supports a finding of eligibility. 
The appeal was filed on September 6, 2013. As of this date, more than seven months later, we have 
received nothing further. 
As stated in 8 C.P.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(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 his eligibility for the classification sought. The appeal must 
therefore be summarily dismissed. 
(b)(6)