dismissed EB-1A Case: Judo

U.S. Department of HomeIand Security 
20 Mass. Avc., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
FILE,: EAC 03 212 50071 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER JUL o 5 2005 
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)(I)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
9- Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigant pursuant to section 203@)(1)(A) of the 
lmrnigration and Natioliality 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 
requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On her Form I-290B, the petitioner stated: 
Applicant herein will prove that she is an alien with extraordinary abilities, and has been in the 
international world of Judo Associations. With trophies and medals received here in Puerto Rico, 
U.S.A., during recent years, and has maintained such status here in New York City, since arrival date - 
March 8, 1989. More time is needed to construct extraordinary-abiljties into an application for 
permanent residency. 
The petitioner dated her appeal December 17, 2004 and indicated that she would send a brief andlor evidence to 
the AAO within 30 days. On January 15,2005, CIS received a letter from the petitioner requesting an additional 
30 days to submit a brief andlor evidence. As of this date, over six months later, the AAO has received nothing 
further fi-om the petitioner. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. $ 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 here has 
identified no errors of law or fact in the decision denying her petition. The appeal must therefore be summarily 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.