dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Department of EIomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
LIN 06 250 51438 
 JAN 1 5 2008 
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 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. 
w 
2 ~obert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (MO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
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. 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
athletics.' 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, previous counsel states: 
 "The petition was supported by substantial evidence, including 
descriptions of the organizations and competitions." 
 The appellate submission was unaccompanied by 
arguments or evidence specifically addressing the pertinent regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3). 
Previous counsel indicated that a brief and/or evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. The 
appeal was filed on March 14,2007. 
On August 6, 2007, more than four months later, the AAO received a letter from present counsel dated 
August 3, 2007 stating: 
I am writing to inform you that [the petitioner] wishes to substitute counsel, and transfer 
representation from [previous counsel] to myself. 
[The petitioner's] reason for substituting counsel is that communication has broken down with 
[previous counsel]. Until this summer, [the petitioner] was not aware that his case had been denied 
and is on appeal, and at this time he is completely unclear as to what documentation has actually been 
submitted in support of his 1-140 [petition], particularly since [previous counsel] failed to check any 
box on the I-290B form regarding future submission of a brief or evidence. 
Counsel's latter statement is incorrect. Under item 2 of the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal to the AAO, 
previous counsel checked the box indicating that a brief andlor evidence would be submitted "to the MO 
withn 30 days" of the filing date. 
In her letter dated August 3, 2007 and in a subsequent letter dated November 8, 2007, counsel requests a copy 
of the petitioner's complete file and additional time to file a brief with supplemental evidence. Counsel's 
August 3, 2007 letter was accompanied by an affidavit by the petitioner describing the alleged breakdown in 
communication with previous counsel. Along with the November 8, 2007 letter, counsel submitted 
correspondence from the Nebraska Service Center reflecting that a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 
request for the petitioner is currently pending. 
With regard to the allegations relating to previous counsel, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel 
requires: (1) that the claim be supported by an affidavit of the allegedly aggrieved respondent setting forth in 
detail the agreement that was entered into with counsel with respect to the actions to be taken and what 
I 
 The petitioner was initially represented by attorney Judith Spom. In this decision, the term "previous counsel" shall refer to 
Judith Spom. 
representations counsel did or did not make to the respondent in this regard, (2) that counsel whose integrity 
or competence is being impugned be informed of the allegations leveled against her and be given an 
opportunity to respond, and (3) that the appeal or motion reflect whether a complaint has been filed with 
appropriate disciplinary authorities with respect to any violation of counsel's ethical or legal responsibilities, 
and if not, why not. Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), affd, 857 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1988). 
While the petitioner submitted an affidavit setting forth his allegations regarding the communication 
breakdown with previous counsel, the documentation of record does not establish that the petitioner has met 
the remaining two requirements (prongs 2 and 3). 
In regard to counsel's request for additional time to submit a brief and further evidence, there is no regulation 
that allows the petitioner an open-ended or indefinite period in which to supplement an appeal once it has 
been filed. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(a)(2)(vii) states "[tlhe affected party may make a written 
request to the [AAO] for additional time to submit a brief. The [AAO] may, for good cause shown, allow the 
affected party additional time to submit one." Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(vii), the petitioner must 
explain in advance that good cause exists for such an extension at the time the appeal is filed. In this instance, 
the petitioner initially indicated only that further documentation would be forthcoming within thirty days; he 
did not indicate that he needed additional time, nor has he shown good cause for such an extension by 
meeting the three requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, supra. Further, there is no statutory or 
regulatory provision that allows for an extension of time to file an appellate brief while a FOIA request is 
pending. 
As of this date, more than eight months after the appeal was filed by the petitioner, the AAO has received no 
appellate brief or further evidence. As stated in 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(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. 
The petitioner has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided any additional 
evidence. The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.