dismissed EB-1A Case: Fashion Design

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
. g}gted to U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
identifying d °#'ce°'^"~'"'''r"""e'#ve"',us2090
yent Clegr[y LADWaIY Washington,DC 20529-2090
vasionof Personatpuvacy U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
PUBLICCOPY services
FILE: Office: TEXASSERVICECENTER Date:
DEC0 2 2010
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor AlienWorkerasanAlienof ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto Section
203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase. All of thedocuments
relatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadetothatoffice.
If you believethe law wasinappropriatelyappliedby us in reachingour decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile amotionto reconsideror amotionto reopen.The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha requestcan be found at 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5. All motionsmustbe
submittedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcasebyfiling aFormI-290B,Noticeof AppealorMotion,
with a fee of $630. Pleasebe awarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthatanymotionmustbe filed
within30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto reconsiderorreopen.
Thankyou,
P
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The employment-basedimmigrantvisa petitionwasdeniedby the Director,Texas
ServiceCenter,andis now beforethe AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO) on appeal. Theappeal
will besummarilydismissed.
Thepetitionerseeksclassificationasan"alienof extraordinaryability" asa fashiondesigner,pursuant
to section203(b)(1)(A)of the ImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A).
The director determinedthat the petitionerhad not establishedthe requisiteextraordinaryability
throughextensivedocumentationandsustainednationalor internationalacclaim.
Onappeal,counselstates:
Wewishto appealthedenialdatedAugust13,2009(Seeattachedcopyof denial).
As you will noticereviewingthis denial,it appearsthatthe denialis a templateused
for applicantsto the extentthat on page4 the officer state[sic] that [thepetitioner]
hasfailed to establishthatsheis oneof the very few who hasrisento the top of the
judicial system.Which leadsyouto concludethat this is a generaldenialandit does
not appearto discusstheparticularqualificationsof [thepetitioner].
[The petitioner] provided extensive evidence to establish her outstanding
qualificationsin the fashionindustry.Therecordshowsthat [thepetitioner]worked
with fashionpowerhousessuchasPRADA, designersfrom GivenchyandDolceand
Gabbana.Shealsoworkedwith hot newcomersto thefashionindustrythathadseek
heradvise[sic] with regardsto NewYork FashionWeek.
[Thepetitioner]is well respectedandknown in the fashionindustryoneof the most
competitiveindustriesin theworld in NewYork whichis oneof themostcompetitive
marketsin theworld.
Based on the foregoing, [the petitioner's] record should be taken [sic] further
consideration.
We acknowledgethe director's erroneousreferenceto the "judicial system"on page4 of the
decision. However,the sentenceimmediatelyprecedingthe director's typographicalerror states:
"The beneficiary has not submitted evidencewhich demonstratesthat she is nationally or
internationallyrecognizedin the fashionindustryor that shehassustainedany nationalacclaimor
internationalacclaim." Moreover,pages2 and3 of thedirector'sdecisionalsocorrectlyreferto the
petitioner'sfield asthe fashionindustry. Accordingly,thetypographicalerroron page4 identified
by counseldidnotprejudicethepetitioner.
On appeal,counseldoesnot specificallychallengeanyof the director'sfindingsor his analysesof
the evidencesubmittedfor the categoriesof evidenceat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Moreover,the
appellatesubmissionwas unaccompaniedby argumentsor evidenceaddressingthe categoriesof
evidenceat8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)whichthepetitionerclaimsto meet.OntheFormI-290B,Notice
Page3
of Appealor Motion, counselcheckedbox "C" in Part2 indicatingthatthepetitionerwouldnot be
submittingasupplementalbriefor additionalevidence.
As statedin 8 C.F.R.§ 103.3(a)(1)(v),anappealshallbesummarilydismissedif thepartyconcerned
fails to identify specificallyanyerroneousconclusionof law or statementof factfor theappeal.
Thepetitionerhasnot specificallyaddressedthe reasonsstatedfor denialandhasnot providedany
additionalevidencepertainingto theclassificationsought. Theappealmustthereforebesummarily
dismissed.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.