dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

identieing data deleted to 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofjce ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
prevent clear'y ?!rv/?r-,j?ted U.S. citizenship 
invasioii of pb;s~~:;j i:;ivscj 
 and Immigration 
Services 
PUBLIC COPY 
' 'i? L 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
SRC 07 196 5 1570 
 MAY 18 2009 
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 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. 8 103.5 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. 9 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
U 
S~ohn F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
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. $ 1 1 53(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 
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). 
On appeal, counsel states: 
1. The Service denied without providing any opportunity to establish claim of the petitioner. 
2. Consideration of the documents would differ the outcome of the matter. 
3. The Center Director Erred by misapplying discretionary authority to classify the 
applicant on EB 1 category. 
4. The applicant qualifies to be classified as an immigrant worker with extra-ordinary ability 
by virtue of his fulfillment of more than three of the required criteria listed in 8 C.F.R. 
$ 204.5(h)(3). 
With regard to item 1, the petitioner was issued and responded to the director's request for evidence 
that cited the deficiencies in the record. See 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(8). Regarding item 2, counsel does 
not specify the documents that the director did not consider. In regard to item 3, counsel does not 
identify specific examples of the director's misapplication of discretionary authority. Finally, with 
regard to item 4, the appellate submission was unaccompanied by arguments or evidence addressing 
the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3) which the petitioner claims to meet. Further, counsel 
does not specifically challenge any of the director's findings or his analyses of the evidence 
submitted for the regulatory criteria. 
Counsel indicated that a brief andlor evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. The 
appeal was filed on June 30, 2008. As of this date, more than ten months later, the AAO has 
received nothing further. 
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. The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.