dismissed EB-1A Case: Fashion Stylist

(b)(6)
DATE: JAN 1 7 2013 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department or Homeland Security 
\.).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 Wo.rker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(I)(A) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act; 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(I)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the 
office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
· If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen 
in accordance with the instructions on Form 1-2908, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of$630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
]JDe;Jridu 
D 
Ron Rosenberg · 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, on July 6, 2012. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 
(AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be sununarily 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. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability as a fashion stylist. Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of 
extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute that the petitioner demonstrate "sustained 
national or international acclaim" and present "extensive documentation" of his or her 
achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The 
implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can establish sustained 
national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement, specifically a major, 
internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten 
categories of specific evidence. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must submit 
qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish the 
basic eligibility requirements. 
In the director's decision, the director thoroughly discussed the documentary evidence submitted by 
the petitioner. While the director determined that the petitioner met the published m~terial criterion 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the director determined that the petitioner 
failed to establish eligibility for the awards criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i), the judging criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F~R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the 
original contributions criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the artistic 
display criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii), the leading or critical role 
criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), and the commercial success 
criterion pUrsuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). Further, the director found that the 
petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence regarding the met:nbership criterion pursuant 
. to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) and the high salary criterion pursuant to the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
On Form 1-2908, Notice of Appeal or Motion, .counsel indicated in Part 2 that he was filing an 
appeal and his "brief and/or additional ~vidence will be submitted to the AAO within 30 days." 
Counsel dated the appeal on August 7, 2012. As of this date, approximately five months later, the 
AAO has received nothing further. Accordingly, the record is considered complete as it now stands. 
The sole basis for the appeal consists ofcounsel's statement in part 3 of Form 1-2908: 
The decision of users dated July 6, 2012 denying [the petitioner's] Immigrant 
Petition for Alien Worker was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and 
against the weight of the evidence. 
The totality of the evidence documents the [petitioner's] qualifications for the 
benefit sought. 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
Rather than challenging any of the director's specific findings, counsel generally alleges that the 
director made erroneous conclusions. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) provides that 
"[a]n officer to whom an appeal is t4en 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, counsel makes only general assertions without offering any substantive. 
argument pointing to specific facts or analyses in contention. 
As counsel has failed to provide any specific statement or argument regarding the basis of the 
appeal, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.