dismissed EB-1A Case: Music

data deleted to 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
prevent clearly unwarrantec 
fnvadam ?? FP- ,-Y-o~ ydVacri U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PDaLlc COPY t, 
FILE: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: MAY 2 5 2005 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for AIien Worker as an AIien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont 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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
the arts. The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
It is noted that two appeals have been filed for this petition. The petitioner herself filed Form I-290B, Notice 
of Appeal, on October 13, 2004 (receipt number EAC 05 010 51653). On October 14, 2004, counsel for the 
petitioner filed a subsequent Form I-290B (receipt number EAC 05 01 1 50176). The regulations, however, 
do not permit the filing of multiple appeals for the same decision. While the latter appeal will be rejected as 
improperly filed, its content will be considered as a supplement to the initial appeal because it was received 
within the thirty-day period requested by the petitioner. 
On appeal, the petitioner states: "I will provide additional documentation to support my petition. I strongly 
believe I have a good case to demonstrate my exceptional abilities as a musician." 
The appeal filed by counsel states that the director's decision "ignored the evidence submitted as a whole," 
"did not address the evidence to any significant extent," and "simply declares the evidence insufficient, with 
out explanation." We find, however, that the director's did include an adequate analysis of the evidence 
provided in support of the petition. Neither counsel nor the petitioner specifically challenges any of the 
director's observations. 
Both appeals indicated that a brief and/or evidence would be submitted to the AAO within thirty days. Neither 
appellate submission was accompanied by arguments or evidence addressing the pertinent regulatory criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3). The initial appeal was filed on October 13, 2004. As of this date, more than seven 
months later, the AAO has received nothing further. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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 has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided any additional 
evidence. The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.