dismissed EB-1A Case: Fashion And Costume Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 7955817 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 31, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a fashion and costume designer , seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S .C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) . 
This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation . 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, determining that the Petitioner did 
not provide evidence of a one-time achievement , or, in the alternative, evidence that she satisfied at 
least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria for this classification . 
On appeal , the Petitioner does not acknowledge or address the grounds for denial of the petition or 
contend that the petition was denied based on any error on the part of the Director. Rather , the 
Petitioner submits a brief from counsel that was copied verbatim from counsel's July 10, 2019 letter 
submitted in response to a request for evidence (RFE) . 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part that "[a]n 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. " 
Here, the Petitioner has not contested any aspect of the Director 's decision and has not identified an 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact on the part of the Director as a basis for the appeal. 
Therefore , the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
We note that the Director 's eleven-page decision adequately addressed the evidence submitted with 
respect to each of the claimed evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(ix) and explained why 
such evidence was insufficient to meet the Petitioner's burden. Further , the decision reflects that the 
Director took into consideration the Petitioner's response to the RFE, which is now re-submitted on 
appeal in lieu of a brief addressing the denial decision. The Petitioner was therefore given a sufficient 
explanation of the grounds for denial as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i) , and a fair opportunity 
to contest the decision. We agree with the Director 's determination that the Petitioner did not establish 
eligibility for the benefit sought. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. As the petitioner has not identified an erroneous conclusion 
of law or statement of fact in support of the appeal, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed. 
2