dismissed EB-1A Case: Folk Art

'a 
~denu~qing data deleted to 
prevent cie~rry ~nmarraniied 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Of$ce of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. tj 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. 4 103.5(a)(I)(i). 
o/uo~rd~ Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
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. 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. 
The director denied the petition on August 12, 2009, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
The petitioner submits a timely appeal and provides the following as his reason for the appeal: 
I reread the information of the Federal Regulations, the Director had sent to me. I 
think my picture of 101 running horse that have different position is unique in 
world. So I'm engaged as a silhouette and paper-cut folk artist who had risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. All that my past files is outmoded. I am 
being advance with the times. So, I again add my newest works of art as an 
additional information. No more words only unprecedented pictures. No number 
of awards, only win popular acclaim. 
The petitioner failed to cite to specific errors on the part of the director or describe the evidence the 
director allegedly failed to analyze. Further, although the petitioner provided new evidence, 
including examples of his artwork and certifications in Confucianism, the evidence either post-dated 
the filing of the petition or was undated. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 
C.F.R. 55 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec, 45, 49 (Regl. Commr. 1971). A 
petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of 
facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r. 1998). That decision further provides, 
citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), that we cannot "consider facts that come 
into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." Id. at 176. Accordingly, we will not consider 
this evidence. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part: 
An 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. 
The petitioner's general statement regarding the director's decision is not sufficient to meet the 
requirements for filing a substantive appeal. Therefore, as the petitioner has failed to specifically 
identify an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in this proceeding, the appeal must be 
summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.