dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
Identuyinrg dab deleted to 
pmvent clearly unw;arrmted 
invasion d personal privaq 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
4) 
FILE: EAC 02 244 5 1547 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 
 2 8 2006 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
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. 
obert P. Wiemann, Director 
Edministrative Appeals Office 
EAC 02 244 5 1547 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont 
Service Center, and 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. tj 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 requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability and denied the 
petition on February 7, 2005. Counsel filed an appeal on March 26, 2005. The director rejected the 
appeal as untimely filed pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 103.3(a)(2)(i). The director treated the 
untimely appeal as a motion to reconsider pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(2), 
affirmed his previous decision and again denied the petition on May 17, 2005. The petitioner timely 
filed an appeal on May 3 1,2005. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief, which, except for the dates of his signature and the director's 
decision, repeats verbatim the text of the brief he submitted with his untimely appeal of the director's 
February 7, 2005 decision initially denying the petition. Counsel submits no additional evidence and 
does not state any specific reasons for appeal of the director's May 17,2005 decision. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. tj 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 stated reasons for denial in the director's May 17,2005 
decision and has identified no errors of law or fact made in that decision. Consequently, the appeal 
must be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.