dismissed EB-1A Case: Education

(b)(6)
DATENOV t 2 2014 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: PETITIONER: 
BENEFICIARY: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:ljwww.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
F~ 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition on June 17, 2014. The petitioner, who is also the beneficiary, appealed the decision to the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on July 16, 2014. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
In Parts 2 and 6 of the petition, the petitioner indicated that she is seeking classification as an "alien 
of extraordinary ability" as a teacher, pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). In Part 3 of the Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
Form I-290B, "Information About the Appeal or Motion," the petitioner checked the box that states 
"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." A July 12, 2014 letter that the petitioner filed 
with the Form I-290B similarly provides: "Please note that we expect [the petitioner] to be able to 
provide additional evidence within the next 30 days in support of this Notice of Appeal." As of this 
date, approximately three months later the petitioner has not filed a brief or additional evidence. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v) provides, 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." 
In this case, the petitioner has not specifically identified an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of 
fact in the director's June 17, 2014 adverse decision. Instead, the petitioner has filed an appeal without 
stating what regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) that she meets or identifying 
specific evidence in the record that establishes that she meets the particular regulatory criteria. The 
petitioner's mere filing of a Form I-290B without specifically identifying or providing support 
establishing any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal, does not trigger us 
to conduct a full analysis of all the criteria, or a review of the director's decision. See Toquero v. 
INS, 956 F.2d 193, 195 (9th Cir. 1992); Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988); Matter of 
Valencia, 19 I&N Dec. 354 (BIA 1986); see also Desravines v. United States Att'y Gen., No. 08-
14861, 343 F. App'x 433, 435 (11th Cir. 2009) (finding that issues not briefed on appeal by a prose 
litigant are deemed abandoned); Tedder v. F.M.C. Corp., 590 F.2d 115, 117 (5th Cir. 1979) 
(deeming abandoned an issue raised in the statement of issues but not anywhere else in the brief). 
As the petitioner has not specifically identified any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact 
for the appeal, we must therefore summarily dismiss the appeal, pursuant to the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.