dismissed EB-1A Case: Cosmetology

data deleted 
Pre 
ted 
vent clearly unwam 
lrpI privseJ 
invasion of Pew 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
bz 
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. 5 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. 
U 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employrnent-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont 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. tj 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
cosmetology. The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
The petitioner is a 35-year old native and citizen of Turkey. She last entered the United States on June 15, 
2003 as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor. 
On appeal, the petitioner indicated that she would submit additional documentation within thirty days of filing 
the appeal. More than five months have lapsed since the appeal was filed and nothing more has been 
submitted to the record. 
The petitioner failed to address specifically the grounds for denial set forth in the decision of the director. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part: 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party 
concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for 
the appeal. 
Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact 
in this proceeding, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.