dismissed
EB-1A
dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics
Decision Summary
The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner's counsel failed to identify any specific error of law or fact in the director's decision. Counsel had promised to submit a detailed brief within 30 days but failed to do so over a six-month period, leading to the dismissal.
Criteria Discussed
Sustained National Or International Acclaim
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 Washington, DC 20529 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration FILE: w Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: J 2 4 2905 WAC 03 126 54086 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 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 thgoffice that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. .yt 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. ยง 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 requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. On appeal, counsel merely stated, "The Director, indenying [sic] thepetition [sic], erred as a matter of law and in fact, and acted arbitrarily by mischaracterizing the evidence submitted in support of the petition. A detailed brief will be submitted in 30 days." Counsel dated the appeal December 10, 2004. As of this date, over six months later, the AAO has received nothing further. As stated in 8 C.F.R. ยง 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. The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
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.