dismissed EB-1A Case: Nephrology

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unw~ted 
invasion of personal pnvacy 
pUBLIC COP't 
DATE: MAY 20 2011 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Securit); 
U.S. Citizenship and immigration Sen'ices 
Administrative Appeals Office (A;\O) 
20 Massachusetts Ave .. N.W .. MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to . 
Section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(I)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed plcase 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. 
I f 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 rcopen. 
The spccific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the ollice that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(a)( I lei) requires that any motion must be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
,~~;L--
Chicf: Administrative Appeals Olliee 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § IIS3(b)(l)(A). In a 
four-page decision that addressed the regulatory criteria at length, the director determined the petitioner 
had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualitY for classification 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel indicated that she would not submit a supplemental brief and/or additional 
evidence. On the Form I-290B Notice of Appeal she merely stated: "We respectfully submit that the 
record demonstrates that the alien is a nephrologist of extraordinary ability." 
As stated in 8 c.r.R. § \03.3(a)(1 lev), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the party concerned 
fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion oflaw or statement offact for the appeal. 
Counsel here has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided any 
additional evidence. The appeal must thereiore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.