dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

DATE: OCT 2 2 2012 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrativc Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Avc., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.s.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please rind 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 he advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have Cllncerning your case must he made to that office. 
If you helieve the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form 1-29013, NOlice of Appeal or Motion, with a fcc of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can he found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please he aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(I)(i) requires any motion to he filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhcw 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant 
visa petition on April 11,2012. The petitioner, who is also the beneficiary, appealed the decision to 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on May 11, 2012. The appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
On part 6 of the petition. the petitioner indicates that he is seeking classification as an "alien of 
extraordinary ability" in the athletics, specifically, as a football player, pursuant to section 
203(b)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.s.C. § 1153(b)(I)(A). On part 3 
of the Notice of Appeal or Motion, Form 1-290B, "Basis of the Appeal or Motion." the petitioner, 
through his counsel, states. in its entirety, "Additional evidence will be submitted to the AAO within 
30 days." Counsel's letter, dated June 14.2012, states, in its entirety: 
Please accept the additional documentation enclosed in support of the 
I-290B filed with the AAO on May 10,2012. 
We hope this letter and documentation enclosed adequately address 
your concerns and respectfully request your favorable adjudication of 
[the petitioner's] immigrant visa petition. 
Attached to the June 2012 filing are: (1) an I-290B receipt notice, (2) a UPS online tracking printout, 
(3) a photograph of an award that postdates the filing of the petition, and (4) a number of articles, all 
of which postdate the petition. 
The regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v) provides, in pertinent part, the AAO "shall summarily 
dismiss any appeal when the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of 
law or statement of fact for the appeal." 
In this case, neither the petitioner nor counsel has specifically identified an erroneous conclusion of law 
or statement of fact in the director's April 11,2012 denial. In fact, neither the petitioner nor counsel has 
asserted that the director erred in any way. Instead, on appeal, the petitioner, through his counsel, 
without specifically identifying which criteria the petitioner meets, requests a "favorable 
adjudication of [his] immigrant visa petition." The petitioner and counsel's mere request on appeal 
for a "favorable adjudication," without specifically identifying or providing support estahlishing any 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact, does not trigger the AAO to conduct a full analysis 
of all the criteria, or a review of the director's decision. See Desravines v. United Siaies AII:y Gen., 
No. OS-] 4861. 343 F. App'x 433. 435 (11 th Cir. 20(9) (linding that issues not briefed on appeal by a 
pro Sf! litigant are deemed abandoned); Tedder v. F.M.c. Corp., 590 F.2d 115, 117 (5th Cir. 1979) 
(deeming abandoned an issue raised in the statement of issues but not anywhere else in the brief). 
Additionally, the petitioner may not rely on the documents he has filed on appeal to establish his visa 
petition eligibility. Specifically, the photograph of the award notes that the award was for the 2011-
2012 season, and the newspaper articles were published in April 2012. It is well-established that the 
petitioner must demonstrate eligibility for the visa petition at the time of filing, in this case, as of 
Page J 
January 2011 when he filed the petition. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Malter of Kalixhak, 
14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg' I Comm'r 1971). Accordingly, the petitioner may not rely on events that 
occurred after January 24, 2011, the date he filed the petition, to establish his visa petition eligibility. 
As the petitioner has failed to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of 
fact for the appeal, the appeal must be summarily dismissed, pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(I)(v). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.