dismissed EB-1A Case: Medicine

identieing data deleted to 
prevent clearly gn warranted 
hvasion of personal pnvac). 
C1.S. Departmcrtt of'Hon~eland Seeurit) 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Offlce ofAdn~~nrstrrrtive Appeals MS 2090 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PYBLIC COPY 
SRC 08 036 54062 
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. 9 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 9 103.5 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. 5 103.5(a)(I)(i). 
,~ln.eadndc 
/\ Perry Rhew 
k chiif, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
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. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability. 
The director denied the petition on December 8, 2008, 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, through counsel, submits a timely appeal and provides the following reason as his 
reason for the appeal: 
extraordinary nephrologist and has met at least three of the enumerated criteria in 
the INA. 
Counsel did not elaborate on his argument, cite to specific errors on the part of the director or 
describe any evidence the director allegedly failed to analyze. Moreover, counsel failed to provide 
any new evidence on appeal. In fact, counsel, in his appeal letter, "respectfully again point(s) to the 
evidence initially submitted with the original filing as well as with the response to the request for 
evidence" in an attempt to overturn the denial. Accordingly, the record is considered to be complete 
as it now stands. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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 assertions regarding the petitioner's eligibility are not sufficient to meet the 
requirements for filing a substantive appeal. Therefore, as the petitioner has failed to specifically 
identi@ an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in this proceeding, the appeal must be 
summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.