dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: JUN 2 (! 
A" 
LIN 04 250 52333 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: fi 
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. tj I 153(b)(I)(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. 
u 
2~ober-t P. Wiemann, 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 (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. 5 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. 
On appeal, counsel states: "The 1-140 (EB-1) Extraordinary Ability Petition was denied based on an 
erroneous finding that the initial and additional evidence submitted did not establish that the petitioner enjoys 
the sustained national and international acclaim necessary for this restrictive visa classification." 
The appellate submission was unaccompanied by arguments or evidence addressing the pertinent regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
The appeal was filed on October 4, 2005. The petitioner indicated that a brief and/or evidence would be 
submitted to the AAO within 120 days. In a letter accompanying the appeal, counsel states: "Please give us a 
120-day extension to consult with experts and/or to prepare and submit additional evidence based on expert 
affidavits on how the 1-140 self petitioner qualifies for EB-1 extraordinary ability classification." 
As of this date, more than eight months later, the AAO has received no appellate brief or further evidence.' 
In this matter, we find that the director's decision provided a thorough discussion of the evidence presented 
by the petitioner and correctly identified the deficiencies in the record as they relate to the regulatory criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
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. 
The petitioner has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided any additional 
evidence. The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
I 
 On June 9, 2006, the AAO received a facsimile from counsel stating: "A brief andfor evidence were not filed directly 
with the AAO within the period indicated on the Form I-290B. We opted to rely on the original evidence as the basis for 
our appeal."