dismissed EB-1A Case: Automobile Mechanic

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLlCCOPY 
DATE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
OCT 2 6 2011 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
O.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W .. MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)( I )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § I I 53(b)( I )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank y~u'/1 
\L..I r 
Vtr­
~ 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
/' 
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 on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as an "alien of extraordinary ability" pursuant to section 
203(b)(l )(A) of the immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § I I 53(b)(l )(A). The director 
detennined the petitioner had not established that the benefiCiary, an automobile mechanic, el1ioys the 
sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for the classification. 
On appeal, the representative of the petitioner merely states that he would submit a brief and/or 
evidence to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) within 30 days. 
The petitioner dated the appeal May 6, 2010. As of this date, more than 17 months later, the AAO has 
received nothing further. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. § I 03.3(a)( 1 )(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.