dismissed EB-1A

dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

📅 Date unknown 👤 Individual 📂 Athletics

Decision Summary

The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner, after filing the appeal, failed to submit a brief, additional evidence, or specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the director's original decision. The AAO received nothing further from the petitioner for approximately nine months after the appeal was filed.

Criteria Discussed

Sustained National Or International Acclaim Failure To Identify Erroneous Conclusion Of Law Or Statement Of Fact

View Full Decision Text

1deneiFying ee& ti&$& lo 
pRmt clearly unwm 
invasion of oersonal prfm 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W.. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
c FILE: 
Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: DEc 1 6 
WAC 03 258 54283 
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. 3 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
ths office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
,,f Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 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. 3 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, the petitioner merely stated that she needed to appeal the director's decision and that she would submit 
a brief and/or evidence to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) within 30 days. The petitioner dated the 
appeal March 18,2005. As of this date, approximately nine months later, the AAO has received nothng 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 here 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.

Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial

MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.

Avoid This in My Petition →

No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.