dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

b 
identiQi~g data deleted to 
pmvent dearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PUBLIC COPY 
LIN 06 196 51504 
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. 4 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. 4 103.5 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. 8 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
6'b 
3n F. Grissom, Acting Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
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. 9 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 the petitioner had not established that he 
meets a least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, counsel states: 
 "[The petitioner] has met all the requirements as a person of 
extraordinary ability as defined the regulation at 8 C.F.R. Section 204.5(h)(2). 
 The Nebraska 
Service Center has erred when it denied my client's 1-140 Petition." 
The petitioner's appellate submission was unaccompanied by arguments or evidence addressing the 
pertinent regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). On the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal to the 
AAO, the counsel checked the box indicating that she was not submitting a separate brief or 
evidence. 
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. 
The petitioner 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.