dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarr~nted 
invasion ofpersona\ pnvac)' 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: DEC 2 8 2010 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § IIS3(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision. or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F .R. § 103.5. 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 $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
yPerryRhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
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. § I I 53(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in the arts. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the 
requisite extraordinary ability through extensive documentation and sustained national or international 
acclaim. 
On appeal, counsel states: "The Service was erroneous at the application of law and conclusion of 
facts that the petitioner didn't establish that he has sustained national or international acclaim and is 
one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." Counsel does 
not specifically challenge any of the director's findings or his analyses of the evidence submitted for 
the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Moreover, 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. 
Counsel indicated that a brief and/or evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. The 
appeal was filed on October 30, 2009. As of this date, more than thirteen months later, the AAO has 
received nothing further. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the party concerned 
fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion oflaw 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.