dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

identifying data deleted w 
.-vatt clearly unwll'l'll\tO(1 
ian_i .. of penonal priV3Cj 
PUBLIC crnry 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u. S. Citizenship 
and Immigratlon 
Services 
DATE: APR 1 9 2012 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1)(A) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(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 
information 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 Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
PerryRhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
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. § 1 1 53(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in athletics. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established the requisite extraordinary ability through extensive documentation and sustained 
national or international acclaim. The director's decision sufficiently discussed the deficiencies in 
the petitioner's documentary evidence as it related to the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) and found that the petitioner had failed to establish sustained national or 
international acclaim and that he was among that small percentage at the very top of his field of 
endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
On appeal, counsel asserts: 
~titioner] applied for extraordinary ability immigrant visa (EB-l) as a 
_ USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] denied this petition stating 
that [the . did not meet the criteria for an EB-l immigrant visa. [The petitioner] 
is not only an but he is among the very few wrestling coaches 
achieving high accolades for his ability to coach. [The petitioner] provided many 
documents highlighting his achievements not only as an athlete but as a coach to USC IS, 
however, these documents were not properly considered and given weight. As a result, 
we are appealing the decision of USC IS. 
Counsel does not specifically challenge any of the director's findings or point to specific errors 
in the director's analyses of the documentary evidence submitted for the categories of evidence 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) provides that "[a]n officer 
to whom an appeal is taken 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 
matter, the petitioner has not identified as a proper basis for the appeal an erroneous conclusion 
of law or a statement of fact in the director's decision. The appellate submission offers only a 
general statement asserting that the director failed to consider and give proper weight to the 
submitted documents, but counsel does not specify where the alleged error on the part of the 
director occurred. Moreover, 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. 
Counsel indicated that a brief and/or evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. The 
appeal was filed on December 22, 2010. As of this date, more than fifteen months later, the 
AAO has received nothing further. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. § l03.3(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 
Page 3 
provided any additional evidence pertaining to his eligibility for the classification sought. The 
appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.