dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

identifying data deleted to 
pmt clearly unwd 
invasion of peRarel pritracy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
- - 
SRC 00 205 52391 
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: 
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. 
Jh4uda. [I fidkqb Lf 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was initially approved by the Director, 
Texas Service Center. On further review of the record, the director determined that the petitioner was not 
eligible for the benefit sought. Accordingly, the director properly served the petitioner with notice of intent to 
revoke the approval of the immigrant visa petition, and the reasons therefore, and ultimately revoked the 
approval of the petition on May 24, 2006. The matter 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 the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Under item 3 of his Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal to the AAO, the petitioner states: 
I had no time, nor assistance from counsel to prepare a more accurate response. My attorney was 
unable to give me a copy of the original application filed, thus my inability to contact many of my 
colleagues and sports related contacts. I request more time to reconstruct the evidence that proves I 
am an exceptional ability athlete. 
Contrary to his preceding statement, under item 2 of the Form I-290B, the petitioner checked the box 
indicating that he was "not submitting a separate brief or evidence." 
Regarding the petitioner's request for additional time to submit further evidence (as indicated under item 3 of 
the Form I-290B), 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. 8 103.3(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." The petitioner's 
appellate submission did not specify when further evidence would be forthcoming, nor did it indicate that he 
intended to submit a brief challenging the director's findings. The regulations do not state or imply that the 
petitioner may freely supplement the record up until the date of appellate adjudication. 
In regard to the petitioner's claim that counsel failed to provide him with "a copy of the original application 
filed," any appeal or motion based upon 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 representations counsel did 
or did not make to the respondent in this regard, (2) that counsel whose integnty or competence is being 
impugned be informed of the allegations leveled against him 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 (1 st Cir. 1988). 
The petitioner's appellate submission was unaccompanied by arguments or evidence addressing the pertinent 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. €J 204.5(h)(3). The appeal was filed on June 7, 2006. As of this date, more than 
thirteen months later, the AAO has received nothing further. As stated in 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(l)(v), an appeal 
Page 3 
shall be summarily dismissed if the party concerned fails to identi@ specifically any erroneous conclusion of 
law or statement of fact for the appeal. 
The petitioner has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for revocation of the approval of the petition 
and has not provided any additional evidence. The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.