dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

4 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clear: v I!~W ananted 
invasion of pe~wna\ privacy 
4 
identifying data deleted to 
-...I., Il,,\,~,an~ted 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdrninistrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
A U.S. citizens hi^ 
OCT 1 4 2009 
SRC 08 078 52930 
IN RE: 
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. 9 1 153(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. 5 103.5 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. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
&f,?i~inistrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: 
 The employrnent-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the arts, pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. fj 1153(b)(l)(A). 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 merely catalogued the evidence submitted and stated that he would submit a brief 
and/or evidence to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) within 30 days. Counsel dated the appeal 
February 6,2009. As of this date, more than eight months later, the AAO has received nothing further. 
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 identifl specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 
Counsel here has not speciJically addressed the detailed reasons stated for denial and has not provided 
any additional evidence. The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.