dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Date: NOV 1 2 2013 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: 
APPLICATION: 
Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. 
§ 1153(b )(l)(A). 
ON BEHALF OF 
PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
I 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
~ 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification of the beneficiary as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in athletics, as 
a karate instructor and athlete, pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). 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. 
The petitioner filed a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion. However, the petitioner did not 
provide any statement or evidence upon which to base an appeal. The petitioner marked the box 
next to "B" in "Part 2" of Form I-290B, which states: "I am filing an appeal. My brief and/or 
additional evidence will be submitted to the AAO within 30 days." On "Part 3" of the form which 
requires the petitioner to provide a statement explaining any erroneous conclusion of law or fact in 
the director's decision, it simply states: "LETTER WILL BE MAILED." In the accompanying letter 
to the Form I-290B the petitioner's counsel submitted, there is a similar statement: "ADDITIONAL 
EVIDENCE WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE AAO WITHIN 30 DAYS." The record reflects that 
the petitioner filed the appeal on July 19, 2013, and the AAO has received nothing further as of this 
date, more than 90 days after the filing date of the appeal. 
As stated in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the 
concerned party fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for 
the appeal. Cf Idy v. Holder, 674 F.3d 111, 116 (1st Cir. 2012) (noting where an alien fails to raise 
any legal issue regarding the Board of Immigration Appeals denial of an inadmissibility waiver, the 
Court of Appeals is deprived of jurisdiction). See also Desravines v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 343 F. App'x 
433, 435 (11th Cir. 2009) (finding that issues not briefed on appeal 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). In this instance, the petitioner has not 
sufficiently identified a basis for the appeal, either by filing an appeal brief, in accordance with his 
stated intent on "Part 2" of Form I-290B, or by providing a statement on "Part 3" that specifically 
identifies any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. As the petitioner did 
not contest the director's analysis in the final decision, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.