dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

U.S. Department of IIomeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
invasion of pcn0d 
dU&tC copy 
NOV 0 5 2009 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
LIN 07 104 52077 
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. 8 1 153(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. $ 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing 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)(I)(i). 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: 
 The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, on February 23, 2009, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 
on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employrnent-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 1 153(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 
the receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that she meets at least three of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, counsel claims that the director "ignored the majority of evidence submitted." A review of 
the director's decision reflects that he discussed and evaluated the evidence as it related to eight of the 
regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3), including evidence of the petitioner's appearance in 
and hosting of several Spanish language shows, which counsel erroneously claims on appeal was 
"never mentioned." Furthermore, the director cited specific evidence as it related to each criterion. 
In addition, counsel claims that "[tlhe Service used the wrong standard in its analysis of this 
application." However, counsel does not identify what incorrect standard the director used, nor does 
counsel identify the correct standard that the director should have used in his decision. 
Finally, counsel further stated that she would submit a brief that would "detail all the evidence, its 
significance to the petition and reasons that each piece of evidence is relevant to a positive 
determination in this case" within 30 days. Counsel dated the appeal on March 23, 2009. As of this 
date, more than 7 months later, the AAO has received nothing further. Therefore, the record is 
considered to be complete as it now stands. 
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. 
Counsel here 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.