dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
ide~~i:tifying Jzta deleted to 
 Washington, DC 20529-2090 
vrpj rn~mted 
P~~VZII~ CIG~. 
invasion of pcr~,~~?aJ F~~V~EY 
 U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
- 6' 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
 Date:FEB Q 2 2003 
LIN 07 174 50680 
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. 8 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. 
8 103.5 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. 
$ 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
JY~~$!'YL~I 
i Jo F. Grissom, Acting Chief 
Administrative ~~~eals-~ffice 
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 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 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 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel generally asserts that the director erred in the "application of the facts and 
erroneously conclud[ed] that the Beneficiary does not qualifL for the classification of Alien of 
Extraordinary Ability." The petitioner submitted no additional argument or documentation in 
support of the appeal. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 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 identie 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.