dismissed EB-1A Case: Fashion Design

identifying data deleted to 
prevQt clearly up1warra~td 
Ovas" ofpersonal ma,.vq, 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. C~tizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrnfivr Appeals MS2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: ApR 0 3 2009 
SRC 07 275 58200 
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. 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 further 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. 9 103.5 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. fj 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
%oh F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, and 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 as a fashion designer. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an 
alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel states: "8 C.F.R. Section 204.5(h)(4) states that if the standards for extraordinary 
ability classification do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit 
comparable evidence to establish the petitioner's eligibility. Additional evidence will be submitted 
within 30 days." The appellate submission was unaccompanied by arguments or evidence 
addressing the pertinent regulatory requirements at 8 C.F.R. $5 204.5(h)(3) and (4). 
Counsel indicated that a brief andfor evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. The 
appeal was filed on July 11, 2008. As of this date, more than eight months later, the AAO has 
received nothing further. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the party concerned 
fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 
The petitioner has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided any 
additional evidence. The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.