dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
identifying data deleted to 
 and Immigration 
prevent cleqrly -rnwmanted Services 
invasicw: - , i ~rivacy 
"3 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 0 C 1 0 8 2009 
LIN 08 021 51153 
IN RE: 
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. $ 1 153(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. 3 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing 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. $ 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
dkDudulcL, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: 
 The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in athletics. The director determined that the petitioner had not established 
the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. Specifically, the director concluded that the petitioner did not meet at least 
three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). It is noted that the director's decision 
reflects that the petitioner only claimed to meet two of the regulatory criteria. 
On appeal, counsel merely stated that the decision was erroneous because of the director's failure to 
recognize the beneficiary's achievements in her field without specifically addressing the evidence the 
director allegedly failed to recognize. In addition, counsel stated that the beneficiary holds a "Master 
Sport" designation in Russia and won third place in the world. Counsel further stated that he would 
submit a "detail[ed] brief with all the legal arguments" to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
within 30 days. 
Counsel dated the appeal on January 16,2009. As of this date, more than 9 months later, the AAO has 
received nothing further. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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. 
Counsel here has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided any 
additional evidence. He has not even expressed eligibility for at least a third criterion. The appeal must 
therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.