dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-C-R-
Non- Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 8, 2015 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in business. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). The Director, Nebraska 
Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition. The matter is now before us 
on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed . 
• The Petitioner filed the Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form I-140) on January 14, 2014, 
without any supporting documentation. On August 25, 2014, the Director issued a request for 
evidence (RFE) advising the Petitioner to submit evidence to satisfy the evidentiary requirements set 
forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which requires documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence 
that meets at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Although the RFE was properly addressed to 
the Petitioner's address of record, she did not respond to the RFE. The Director denied the petition 
on December 15, 2014, because the Petitioner had not submitted documentation meeting the 
evidentiary requirements at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3). 
The Petitioner filed the Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) on January 16, 2015, without any 
supporting evidence relating to her eligibility for the classification sought. In Part 3 of the Form I-
29GB, the Petitioner checked box "l.b." indicating "[m]y brief and/or additional evidence will be 
submitted to the AAO within 30 calendar days of filing the appeal." Part 4 of the Form I-290B 
instructs the petitioner to "(p ]rovide a statement that specifically identifies an erroneous conclusion 
of law or fact in the decision being appealed." In her statement, the Petitioner asserts that she did 
not receive the Director's RFE, and that she contacted U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to 
request that the RFE be re-sent. The Petitioner indicates that on November 25, 2014, the Director re­
mailed the RFE to her address of record, and then subsequently denied the petition on December 15, 
2014. The Petitioner further states that "additional documents will be submitted to the AAO in 30 
days." The appeal was filed on January 16, 2015. As of this date, more than seven months later, we 
have received nothing further. 
The Petitioner's statement does not identify any erroneous conclusion oflaw or fact in the Director's 
decision. She does not specifically challenge any of the Director's findings or point to specific 
errors in the Director's determination that she had not satisfied the evidentiary requirements set forth 
at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3). 
Matter of M-C-R-
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 has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided any 
evidence pertaining to her eligibility for the classification sought. The appeal must therefore be 
summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofM-C-R-, ID# 13190 (AAO Sept. 8, 2015) 
2