dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

- 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent ciearl), inwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
uUrrL1C COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and lmnligration Services 
Office ofAdmini.strative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 - 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
MAR 1 1 2010 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
LIN 08 185 5 1807 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(1 )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; 8 U.S.C. § I 153(b)(I)(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 Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
fi&lnjri$, 
/ "~erry Rhew 
(- Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, on May 27, 2009, 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. fj 11 53(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. Specifically, the director concluded that the petitioner did not meet at least 
three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, counsel states that "the petitioner meets the requirements for classification of EB-1A." 
Counsel further stated that a brief and additional documents would be submitted within 30 days. 
Counsel dated the appeal on June 25, 2009. As of this date, approximately 8 months later, the AAO has 
received nothing further. Accordingly, the record is considered complete as it now stands. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. fj 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 denial and has not provided any 
additional evidence. The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.