dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
1 
 I 
identifying data deleted to 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
prevent clearly WJ amant"' 
 U. S. Citizenship 
invasion Of pzr~~nd privacy 
and Immigration Services 
EXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
SRC 08 170 53608 
 SEP 0 2 2009 
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. 5 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. $ 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). 
Jllm,yl lL/ 
/ John F. Grissom 
'p Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
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)(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 that the petitioner had not established the 
sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate 
his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3). We further note that the director's decision listed the 
specific requirements for supporting documents as set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
tj 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, counsel states: 
1. The Service denied without providing any opportunity to establish claim of the petitioner. 
2. Consideration of the documents would differ the outcome of the matter. 
3. The Center Director Erred by misapplying discretionary authority to classify the 
applicant on EB 1 category. 
4. The applicant qualifies to be classified as an immigrant worker with extra-ordinary ability 
by virtue of his fulfillment of more than three of the required criteria listed in 8 C.F.R. 
$ 204.5(h)(3). 
With regard to item 1, counsel contends on appeal that the director erred by failing to provide the 
petitioner with the opportunity to submit further evidence before denying the petition. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(8)(ii) provides: 
If all required initial evidence is not submitted with the application or petition or does not 
demonstrate eligibility, USCIS in its discretion may deny the application or petition for lack 
of initial evidence or for ineligibility or request that the missing initial evidence be submitted 
within a specified period of time as determined by USCIS. 
The director is not required to issue a request for further evidence in every potentially deniable case. 
If the director determines that the record lacks initial evidence or does not demonstrate eligibility, 
the cited regulation does not require solicitation of further documentation. Nevertheless, as the 
director's decision has already been rendered, the most expedient remedy for counsel's complaint is 
the full consideration on appeal of any evidence which the petitioner would have submitted in 
rebuttal to the director's observations and findings. The petitioner's appellate submission, however, 
does not include any supplemental evidence despite counsel's claim on the Form I-290B that a brief 
and/or evidence would be submitted to the AAO. 
In regard to item 2, counsel does not specify the documents that the director did not consider or refer 
to additional documents that would have changed "the outcome of the matter." Regarding item 3, 
counsel does not identify specific examples of the director's misapplication of discretionary 
authority. With regard to item 4, the appellate submission was unaccompanied by arguments or 
evidence addressing the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3) which the petitioner claims to 
meet. Further, counsel does not specifically challenge any of the director's findings or his analyses 
of the evidence submitted for the regulatory criteria. 
As previously noted, counsel indicated that a brief andlor evidence would be submitted to the AAO 
within 30 days. The appeal was filed on November 28,2008. As of this date, more than nine 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 identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 
The petitioner has not specifically addressed the director's stated reasons 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.