dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
PUBLIC COPY 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
identieing data deleted to 
prevent dearly ~~nwmanted 
invasion of personal privacy 
1 FILE: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: ApR () 2 2007 
SRC 06 012 53439 
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. $ 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 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
v 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
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 classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in business, pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. fj 1153(b)(l)(A). The 
petitioner filed the instant petition on October 17, 2005, supported by her degrees, a certificate of 
recognition, verification of past employment, a presentation and what appears to be an unpublished 
manuscript. The petitioner did not explain how any of this evidence relates to the ten regulatory criteria 
pertinent to the classification sought, set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). On October 27, 2005, the 
director issued a notice of intent to deny the petition, advising that "the initial evidence did not 
demonstrate eligibility" and requesting the submission of evidence relating to the ten regulatory criteria, 
of which an alien must meet at least three. The record contains no response to this notice. On 
December 9, 2005, the director concluded that the petitioner's failure to respond to the October 27, 
2005 notice precluded a finding that the petitioner meets any of the regulatory criteria. 
On appeal, the petitioner does not challenge the director's conclusion that she failed to respond to the 
October 27, 2005 notice. Rather, she submits a postal receipt documenting the initial filing of the 
petition on October 17, 2005 and other documents, most of which were submitted initially and found 
deficient by the director. The new evidence includes certificates of appreciation unsupported by 
evidence regarding their significance. The petitioner still has not explained how the evidence submitted 
serves to meet or even relates to at least three of the regulatory criteria. 
The petitioner was put on notice of required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide 
it for the record before the visa petition was adjudicated. The petitioner failed to respond and now 
submits new documentation on appeal. The AAO, however, will not consider this evidence for any 
purpose. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 
533 (BIA 1988). 
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 reason stated for denial, her failure to respond to the 
October 27, 2005 notice of intent to deny which advised that the initial evidence did not sufficiently 
relate to the pertinent regulatory criteria. The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.