dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave , N W . Km A3042 
U'ash~ngton, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PUBLIC con t;: A 
FILE: - Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
WAC 01 243 58454 
AUG 1 1 2003 
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. 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 
y decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
I 
r,& 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, initially approved the employment-based immigrant 
visa petition. Upon further review, the director determined that the petition had been approved in error. The 
director properly served the petitioner with a notice of intent to revoke, and subsequently revoked the approval 
of the petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 
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. tj 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 requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability and revoked the approval of the petition. 
Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 155, provides that "[tlhe Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, 
for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under 
section 1154 of this title." A director may revoke the approval of a petition on notice "when the necessity for 
the revocation comes to the attention of this Service." 
On appeal, counsel merely stated, "The District Director, erred as a matter of law in revoking the approval of the 
self-petitioning 1-140. It is appellant's contention that the evidence submitted in support of the 1-140 and 1-485 
applications established that he is an alien of extraordinary ability as defined under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
lmmigration and Nationality Act." Counsel requested 90 days to submit a brief andlor additional evidence in 
support of the appeal. Counsel dated the appeal December 28, 2004. As of this date, over seven months later, 
the AAO has received no brief or additional evidence from the petitioner or his counsel. On July 21, 2005, the 
AAO received a signed statement from counsel indicating that she did not file a brief or evidence in support of 
this appeal as she indicated on the Form I-290B. 
Pursuant to the regulation at 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 revocation or submitted any additional 
evidence. Because counsel has not identified any error of law or fact contained in the director's decision, the 
appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.