dismissed EB-1A Case: Not Specified

(b)(6)
DATE: 
APR 2 7 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
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)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date 'of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
�Z£----
Ron Rosenberg 
/'-
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www .uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) 
of the immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). In a decision that 
addressed the petitioner's evidence under the relevant evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), the 
director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualify for the classification. 
On appeal, the petitioner stated that she would submit a brief and/or evidence to the Administrative 
Appeals Office (AAO) within 30 days. The petitioner dated the appeal April 24, 2013. As of this date, 
more than 23 months later, we have received nothing further. Within ·Part 3 of the Form I-290B, the 
petitioner lists some of the evidence she provided, but she does not identify any specific evidence the 
director did not consider, or explain how the director's analysis of the evidence was erroneous. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(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. See 
Desravines v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 343 F. App'x 433, 435 (11th Cir. 2009) (finding that issues not briefed on 
appeal are deemed abandoned); Tedder v. F.M.C. Corp., 590 F.2d 115, 117·(5th Cir. 1979) (deeming 
abandoned an issue raised in the statement of issues but not anywhere else in the brief). In this instance, 
the petitioner has not identified specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact. In this 
case, the regulations mandate the summary dismissal of the appeal. As the petitioner failed to provide 
any specific statement regarding the basis of his appeal, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.