dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-C-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY I, 2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a painter who claims extensive knQwledge in painting and arts, seeks classification as 
an individual of "extraordinary ability" in the field of the arts. See Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act)§ 203(b)(I)(A); 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(I)(A). The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied 
the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part, we "shall summarily dismiss any 
appeal when the party concerned fails to identizy specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or 
statement of fact for the appeal." In Part 3 of the Form I-2908, "Information About the Appeal or 
Motion," the Petitioner checked the box that reads: "I am filing an appeal to the Administrative 
Appeals Office (AAO). My brief and/or additional evidence is attached." In a statement 
accompanying the Form 1-2908, the Petitioner disputes the Director's determination regarding the 
high salary criterion, stating in pertinent part: "[O]n the request for evidence I submitted another 
evidence [sic] that showed that I am being paid way more than people with my caliber." 
In this case, the Petitioner indicates that he challenges the Director's tinding pertaining to the high 
salary criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). In the denial, the Director discussed 
the evidence in the record, which consisted of a job offer for a graphic design position and a wage 
comparison from the online wage library of the Department of Labor's Foreign Labor Certification 
Data Center. The Director found that the evidence did not demonstrate that the Petitioner received a 
high salary as an artist, the occupation under which he seeks to establish his extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not identizy an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the 
Director's decision. The mere filing of a Form I-2908, without specifically identifying an erroneous 
conclusion of law or statement of fact, does not trigger an analysis of the criteria or a review of the 
Director's decision. See 8 C.F.R. § I 03.3(a)(l )(v); Toquero v. INS, 956 F.2d 193, 195 (9th Cir. 
1992). 
As the Petitioner has not specifically identified any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact, 
we must dismiss the appeal. 
Matter of R-C-
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Cite as Matter ofR-C-, ID# 17863 (AAO July I, 2016) 
2