dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts And Music

identifYing data deleted to 
prev~nt clearly unWarranted 
invasIOn of personal ' pnvac}' 
PUBLIC COpy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Securit:y 
U.S. Citizenship and ImmigratlOn Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave .. N.W .. MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Date: 
MAR 0 9 2011 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: 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, § lI53(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case, All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case, Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office, 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
infonnation that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen, 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 c'F,R, § 103,5, All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Fonn 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630, Please be aware that 8 C,F,R, § \03,5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, 
Thank you, 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa pelilion was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, 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)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(I)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established the requisite extraordinary ability through extensive documentation and sustained 
national or international acclaim. 
On appeal, the petitioner states: 
The r-140 petition of the beneficiary based on classification of Extraordinary Ability in 
the Arts has been erroneously denied by the USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services 1 based on erroneous conclusions of law and fact. The uscrs erred in concluding 
that the beneficiary is not nationally or internationally acclaimed. The uscrs further erred 
in concluding that the beneficiary's work is not leading or does not have original 
contributions of major significance in the field of arts and music as the evidence in the 
record combined in the original petition and in the response to Request for Evidence 
shows ample evidence (and more than three of the criteria are affirmatively met) under 
the 8 C.F.R. Section 204.5(h)(3) to prove that the Beneficiary is in fact qualified under 
the extraordinary ability category. 
On appeal, the petitioner does not specifically address the director's findings or his analyses of 
the documentation submitted for the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Moreover, 
the petitioner does not specify the documentary evidence in the record which the director erred in 
evaluating. While the petitioner argues that uscrs "erred in concluding that the beneficiary's 
work is not leading or does not have original contributions of major significance in the field of 
arts and music," he does not point to specific evidence in the record or identify which of the 
director's statements under 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) and (viii) were in error. Further, the 
appellate submission was unaccompanied by additional evidence addressing the categories of 
evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) which the petitioner claims to meet. On the Form I-290B, 
Notice of Appeal or Motion, the petitioner checked box "c" in Part 2 indicating that he would not 
be submitting a supplemental brief or additional evidence. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. § I 03.3(a)(1 )(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. 
The petitioner has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided 
any additional evidence pertaining to the classification sought. The appeal must therefore be 
summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.