dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

,-
DATE: DEC 0 8 2012 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Ih~JlartnH.'nf of HOfl1('lanu Sccuril~ 
I !,S, ('ili/..;nship and 11llllligrali(1ll Senicl.?:. 
!\drllillistnltiv..: Arpcab Ofjic(' (A:\O) 
~O Md,-SJr\Juscth A\c .. ~.W .. \·1'-) 2090 
Wd:-.hill!!loll. DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section203(b)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(I)(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 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 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of$630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R, § 103,5(a)(I)(i) requires any motion to be filed 
within 30 days ofthe decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, 
Thank you, 
AOMncL t ~~~ Rosenberg 
, Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
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)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § IIS3(b)(I)(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 discussed the deficiencies in the 
petitioner's documentary evidence as it related to the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.S(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.S(h)(2). The director also found that the petitioner had not submitted 
clear evidence that he will continue to work in his area of expertise in the United States. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(S). 
Part 3 of the Form 1-2908, Notice of Appeal or Motion, includes a space for the petitioner to 
"[p ]rovide a statement explaining any erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the decision being 
appealed." The petitioner states: "We need more time to prepare supporting documents. 8rief 
documents will be filed within 30 days." 
The petitioner's statement fails to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the 
director's decision. The petitioner 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.S(h)(3). Further, the petitioner does not explain how 
the specific documentary evidence that he submitted supports a finding of eligibility. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(I)(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. 
In Part 2 of the Form 1-2908, the petitioner checked box "8" indicating "[m]y brief and/or 
additional evidence will be submitted to the AAO within 30 days." The appeal was filed on May 
24,2012. As oftbis date, more than six months later, the AAO has received nothing further. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. § 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 pertaining to his eligibility for the classification sought. The 
appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.