dismissed EB-1A Case: Music

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
AUG 2 f 2012 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
V.S. Department or Homeland Sc('uril~ 
U.S. Citi7cnship and Immigration Servicc~ 
Administrative Appc<lh ()lficl' (At\O) 
10 Massachuo.,elts ;\VL". N.W .. MS 1()\)() 
WashinglOn, DC 20529-2\)l!(i 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ahility Pursuant to Section 
203(h)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.s.c. § 1153(h)(1 )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 
SELF· REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed plcase find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. All uf the documents 
related to this malter have heen returned to the office that originally decided your case. Plcase he advised that any 
further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must he made to that office. 
If you hdieve thc AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I·290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fce of $630. The specilic 
requirements lelf liling such a motion can he found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion directly with the 
AAO. Plcase he aware that S C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires any motion to he filed within 30 days oj" the 
decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or rcopen. 
Thank you, 
~e~r~-
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition 
on August 30, 2011. The petitioner, who is also the beneficiary, appealed the director's decision with the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on September 30,2011. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability," as a musician, pursuant to section 
203(b)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U,S.c. § 1153(b)(I)(A). The director 
determined that the petitioner had not met the initial requirement of submitting three types of qualifying 
evidence and that she had established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for 
classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. Specifically, while the director found that the petitioner 
had submitted qualifying published material, the director further concluded that she had not submitted any 
additional qualifying evidence because the events at which she perfonned were not showcases of her work 
and because her roles for various organizations or establishments were not leading or critical. 
On appeal, the petitioner states, in a conclusory manner, that the director erred in denying the petition. 
noting that she submitted newspaper articles from major media, which the director did not contest, evidence 
of performing at an award ceremony that is considered the "most important Latin music industry event in 
the world," and evidence of her perfonnance at the 7th Annual Florida Music Festival and Conference. The 
petitioner did not explain how the events where she perfonned were showcases of her work or how her 
roles were leading or critical and has not challenged any other aspect of the director's decision. including 
the final merits determination. 
The petitioner indicates on the Form 1-2908, Notice of Appeal or Motion, that in support of the appeal. she 
would submit a brief and/or additional evidence to the AAO within 30 days. Specifically. on the Form 1-
2908. the petitioner states "Other facts and evidence will be presented with my brid'." The Form 1-29013 is 
dated September 28, 2011. As of this date, nearly a year later, the AAO has received nothing further from 
the petitioner. 
As provided in the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 103.3(a)(I)(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." 
In this case, other than providing a paragraph in which the petitioner asserts that she submitted a numhcr of 
supporting documents and that the director erroneously denied the petition, the petitioner has not 
specifically identified an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the director's denial. 
See Desravincs v. United States Att 'y Gen., 343 F. App'x 433, 435 (lith Cir. 2(09) (a passing reference 
in the arguments section of a brief without substantive arguments is insufficient to raise that ground on 
appeal). In addition, the petitioner has not provided a brief and/or any additional evidence, referenced as 
forthcoming on the Form 1-2908, dated September 28, 2011. The appeal must therefore be summarily 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.