dismissed EB-1A

dismissed EB-1A Case: Cycling

📅 Date unknown 👤 Individual 📂 Cycling

Decision Summary

The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner failed to provide a brief or additional evidence after filing the appeal form. The petitioner did not identify any specific erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the director's decision, which is a requirement for an appeal.

Criteria Discussed

Failure To Identify Erroneous Conclusion Of Law Or Statement Of Fact Failure To Submit A Brief Or Additional Evidence

View Full Decision Text

MATTER OF S-D-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 6, 2015 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a cyclist, seeks classification as a person of "extraordinary ability." See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b )(1 )(A); 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(1 )(A). The Director, Texas 
Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal will be 
summarily dismissed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part, we "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." The submitted Notice of Appeal or Motion, Form I-290B, does not 
contain a statement regarding the reasons for appeal. In Part 3 of the Form I-290B, "Information 
About the Appeal or Motion," the Petitioner checked the box that reads: "I am filing an appeal to the 
AAO. My brief and/or additional evidence will be submitted to the AAO within 30 calendar days of 
filing the appeal." However, as oftoday's date, over four months after the Petitioner filed his appeal 
in May 2015, he has not provided a brief or additional evidence. 
In his decision, the Director discussed the evidence in the record and found that the Petitioner did not 
establish his extraordinary ability or that he would continue to be employed in his field in the United 
·States. In this case, the Petitioner has not identified an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact 
in the Director's decision. The mere filing of a Form I-290B, without specifically identifying an 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact, does not trigger an analysis of the criteria or a 
review of the Director's decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v); Toquero v. INS, 956 F.2d 193, 195 
(9th Cir. 1992). 
As the Petitioner has not specifically identified any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact, 
we must dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Cite as Matter ofS-D-, ID# 14812 (AAO Nov. 6, 2015)

Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial

MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.

Avoid This in My Petition →

No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.