dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U 5 C~t~~ensh~p and Irnrn~grat~o~l Ser\~ce\ 
r ;,.*I .1?-, 
 Office of ild~timrsfro/rve Appeals MS 2090 
7 :*-n r-c'-- I I, 
\QC2 . , 'A . 
 Wash~ngton. DC 20529-2090 
, .,, ,,- '4 
,v;.,".: L 7'- 
- : L \ \d- .. -' 
 . , ,--. U.S. Citizenship 
- .< < . - - - , - - i' 
" ~rk~rpo"~ and Immigration 
PIJi3 , Services 
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 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 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. 
3 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
V gohn F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center. The petition is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification of the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant 
pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 
1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. The director determined the 
petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify 
for classification of the beneficiary as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Counsel for the petitioner timely filed a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, in which he 
asserted that the director "erred by misapplying discretionary authority to classify the applicant on 
EB1 category." Counsel indicated on the Form I-290B that a brief andlor additional evidence would 
be submitted to the AAO within 30 days of filing the appeal. As of the date of this decision, 
however, more than 11 months after the appeal was filed, no further documentation has been 
received by the AAO. Therefore, the record will be considered complete as presently constituted. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part: 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when 
the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of 
law or statement of fact for the appeal. 
The petitioner has failed to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of 
fact in this proceeding; therefore, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.