dismissed EB-1A Case: Music

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8745573 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUNE 15, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an orchestral violinist, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This first 
preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, determining that the Petitioner did 
not provide evidence of a one-time achievement, or, in the alternative, evidence that he satisfied at 
least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria for this classification. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not acknowledge or address the grounds for denial of the petition or 
contend that the petition was denied based on any error on the part of the Director. Rather, the 
Petitioner submits the Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, and an appeal statement. On the 
Form 1-290B the Petitioner marked Box l(b) in Part 2, indicating that he would submit a brief and/or 
additional evidence to this office within 30 calendar days of filing the appeal. Similarly , in his 
statement the Petitioner indicates that "[a] formal brief detailing the grounds for appeal will follow 
within the proscribed time frame ." The record reflects that the Petitioner has not submitted a brief or 
any additional evidence since filing the appeal more than nine months prior. Accordingly, the record 
will be considered complete as presently constituted. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part that "[a]n 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." 
Here, the Petitioner has not contested any aspect of the Director's decision and has not identified an 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact on the part of the Director as a basis for the appeal. 
Therefore, the appeal will be summarily dismissed . 
We note that the Director's decision adequately addressed the evidence submitted with respect to each 
of the claimed evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(ix) and explained why such evidence 
was insufficient to meet the Petitioner's burden. The Petitioner was therefore given a sufficient 
explanation of the grounds for denial as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i), and a fair opportunity 
to contest the decision. We agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not establish 
eligibility for the benefit sought. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. As the petitioner has not identified an erroneous conclusion 
of law or statement of fact in support of the appeal, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed. 
2