dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwd 
invasion of persod privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
SRC 08 100 53516 MAY 0 6 2010 
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 11 53(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. 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 $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
?perry Rhew u 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
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. $ 1 153(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. 
On appeal, counsel states: 
The Service Center adjudicator erred in interpreting evidence of the petitioner/beneficiary's 
extraordinary abilities in tennis. The Texas Service Center overlooked certain evidence 
submitted and dismissed other evidence without giving it the proper weight. These and 
additional grounds for appeal will be argued in a brief to be submitted to AAO. 
Counsel does not specify the evidence that was overlooked or not accorded proper weight. 
Moreover, counsel does not specifically challenge any of the director's findings or his analyses of 
the evidence submitted for the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3). Further, the appellate 
submission was unaccompanied by arguments or evidence addressing the regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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 September 22, 2009. As of this date, more than seven 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 the classification sought. The appeal must therefore be summarily 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.