dismissed EB-1A Case: Machine Operator

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invuion of personal privac} 
PUBLICCOfY 
DATE: APR 2 0 2012 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.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 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(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 law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 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 $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, on August 19, 2011. The matter is now before the Administrative 
Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to 
section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A), 
as an alien of extraordinary ability as a machine operator. Congress set a very high benchmark 
for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute that the petitioner demonstrate 
the beneficiary's "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, he determined that the petitioner failed to satisfy the antecedent 
regulatory requirement of at least three types of evidence. In fact, the director found that the 
petitioner failed to submit any evidence relating to nine of the regulatory categories of evidence, 
and submitted evidence relating to the high salary criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix) but did not establish eligibility for that criterion. On appeal, the petitioner 
claims: 
[T]he Form 1-140 was submitted on 12/15/2010 has been denied. So I need to file 
this Form I-290B to continue process of my petition. Also I dont [sic] have 
sufficient evidence of my work such as achivements [sic], awards, etc. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.3 (a)(1)(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 not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not 
provided any additional evidence. As the petitioner has failed to provide any specific statement or 
argument regarding the basis of appeal, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.