dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
OfJice of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
- -- 
SRC 08 250 52050 
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. 
5 103.5 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. 
5 103S(a)(l)(i). 
b~hidf, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Texas Service Center. The petition 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. 8 11530>)(1)(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 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had 
failed to demonstrate receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that she meets at 
least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). 
Counsel for the petitioner timely filed a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, in which he 
generally asserted that the director's decision was "arbitrary, capricious and a gross abuse of 
discretion." Counsel indicated on the Form I-290B that a brief and/or additional evidence would be 
submitted to the AAO within 30 days. As of the date of this decision, however, more than six 
months after the appeal was filed, no Mher documentation has been received by the AAO. 
Therefore, the record will be considered complete as presently constituted. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(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.