dismissed EB-1A Case: Dry Stone Masonry

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
b* '"' 1-1,4,-?7 ,, 
IQ:Y~~:*;-[*<' c - - U.S. Cit~zensh~p and Immigrat~on Serv~ces 
q I '. -1; .? Office ofAdmzn~strat~ve Appeals MS 2090 p~~1.c '- f PI ' Washington, DC 20529-2090 
" . --;-y'r,y 
k,-;;si~,l rd y , 
 "I - 
 U. S. Citizenship 
, F~r COB)< 
531L ,,r~h- and Immigration Services 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: *p~ 2 g 2009 
LIN07 111 50110 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability hsuant 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: 
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 fkrther inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to 
have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.5 for the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided 
your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
5 103S(a)(l)(i). 
V 
F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center. The petition 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 1153(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. The director determined the petitioner had not 
established that the petitioner established that he sought entry into the United States as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. - Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified 
immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) 
through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. - An alien is described in this 
subparagraph if - 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national 
or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized 
in the field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area 
of extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
Counsel for the petitioner asserts that he does not wish to "rehash" the arguments and issues 
presented in the petition, and states: 
It is simply for the representatives of the United States Citizenship and Immigration 
Services to consider what the loss of [the petitioner's] services will mean: Loss of 
the resource for artistic expression through the use of dry stone masonry, whether 
one praises it as art or disparages and refuses to recognize by the insouciant use of 
terms such as those in the denial letter, "mere construction trade." By these lights, or 
lack thereof, architecture is no art but merely a construction trade. Furthermore, the 
insulting and denigrating comparisons in the denial letter beggar reasonable 
characterization. 
Nonetheless, the petitioner submitted no documentation to establish that the trade of dry stone 
masonry, as practiced by the petitioner, falls within the category of "the arts." In response to the 
director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted letters fi-om individuals who used the term 
"art" in discussing the petitioner's work. However, the petitioner submitted no documentation to 
establish that dry stone masonry is one of "the arts" as that term is contemplated by the Act. The 
documentation submitted by the petitioner describes the position of dry stone mason as a craft 
within the construction industry. A page fiom the website of the Dry Stone Conservancy (DSC) 
states: 
The Dry Stone Conservancy's Certifications Program, federally registered in 
2001, is offered to promote public confidence in dry-laid masonry as a desirable 
building technique and in the skills of certified drystone masons. As a part of this 
goal, the Dry Stone Conservancy (DSC) conducts training courses to teach 
international drystone construction standards, and maintains a register of 
independent professional masons. 
Thus, the petitioner's evidence reflects that a dry stone mason is a craft in the construction trade. 
The petitioner submitted no additional documentation on appeal that would rebut the director's 
determination that the work of a stone mason does not fall within any of the categories eligible for 
visa preference classification under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act (the Act). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 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. 
The petitioner has failed to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of 
fact in this proceeding; therefore, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.