dismissed EB-1A Case: Computer Programmer

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
'-@ing dd, WedEd to 
Pmwnt dearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PUBLIC COPY h 
I">"'L 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 0 8 2008 
EAC 06 017 51628 
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. 
prt P. ~iemd, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
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. 5 11 53(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability as a 
computer programmer. The director determined the petitioner had not established that she qualifies for 
classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner states: 
THE SERVICE DID NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE ENTIRE BACKGROUND AND 
EXPERIENCE OF THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT ALL EVIDENCE 
SUBMITTED IN BEHALF OF HER PETITION WAS NOT REVIEWED BY [CITIZENSHIP AND 
IMMIGRATION SERVICES]. APPLICANT WILL SUBMIT A BRIEF WITH EXHIBITS TO 
SUPPORT HER CLAIM THAT THE DECISION WAS MADE IN ERROR. 
The appellate submission was unaccompanied by arguments or evidence addressing the pertinent regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
The petitioner indicated that a brief and/or evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. The appeal 
was filed on March 2, 2007. As of this date, more than nine months later, the AAO has received nothing 
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 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.