dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

U.S. Deuartrnent of Homeland Security 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwananted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC copy 
IJS Citircnship and lmrnipration Scrviccs 
?i/ice <?[Ad,,?irri.s/ro/ive Ap,,eois MS 20'10 
Washineton. I)T 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: - Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Dat DEC 01 2010 
SRC 09 144 52647 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act; 8 U.S.C. 5 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 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. 5 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-2908. Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
@%!:cL 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, on November 2,2009, 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. 1153(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability as a "Shaolin Martial Arts Instructor." The director determined that 
the petitioner had not established the requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit 
extensive documentation of his sustained national or international acclaim. 
On appeal, counsel generally states that "USCIS erred not to recognize [the petitioner's] 
extraordinary performance in the field of his endeavor as an extraordinary martial artist and failed to 
evaluate submitted evidence." Counsel does not elaborate on this claim or refer to the specific 
evidence which the director purportedly failed to evaluate. Counsel additionally states that "[mlore 
evidence are [sic] requested from China, which takes time to reach petitioner. Thus, additional time 
is requested for the submission of brief." The petitioner dated the appeal on November 27, 2009. 
As of this date, approximately 12 months later, the AAO has received nothing further. Accordingly. 
the record is considered complete as it now stands. 
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 not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not 
provided any additional evidence. As the petitioner has failed to provide any statement or argument 
regarding the basis of his appeal, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.