dismissed EB-1A

dismissed EB-1A Case: Not Specified

📅 Date unknown 👤 Individual 📂 Not Specified

Decision Summary

The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner failed to specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the director's decision. The petitioner did not provide any arguments or new evidence on appeal to address the reasons for the denial.

Criteria Discussed

Sustained National Or International Acclaim

View Full Decision Text

Li.5. Dt.pnrtn~r:nt of Kgonkelalad Sccrrritg 
23 Mass. .4ve., N.V4., ib,. it3042 
Washirigiun, I)i' 20529 
and Immigration 
PETITION: 
 Irmarnipran? Petition for Alien Wcjrlier. as nn AIie51 of Extraordinary Ability Pixsuant to Secti,~~ 
20-3(h)i: 1 )(A) of the Inxnigratiol-r and W;itlor~alify Ac:, 8 1j.S.C. $ I 1 53 jb)( i)ih) 
This is the decision of the Adn:inistrative Appeals Office in yorrr case. All documents have beer1 returned to 
th -. <. .,p-..- IIC.~ that origit~ali'jr decided your case, Ar:y fi-irtl~er i;:y~tiry intist he iriade to that office. 
e 
J,. Robert P. 5Viemar.rt1, Chief 
Adrninisti-ative Appeals Clft'iccr. 
D.IISCTSSION: 
'-{'he e1xployn1ent-i2ased i~nrnigwant visa petition W~S denied by the Director, Vern~ont 
Service Center, altd is now before d~e i%dn~jnistratlve Appeals 0-f5ce csn a~sjseal. 'T'he appeal will he sulnn~arily 
disnsissed. 
'T'he petiiji?iler seeks clrrssiiicatioa as an employmeni.-based imrr~iprant pursuant to section 20?(h)(l)(Ab of the 
Immigration and Nationalicy Acl (the Act), 8 tr.S.(.:. $ I 153(ir)(I )(A)? as 2111 alien of extraordinary ability. 
TI7. .; ' e director deterrz~irleci the petitioirer I-tad !lot- establisl~ed the srrstaiivx! national or international zcclairn 
necessary to cjuzilifi; for classification as an aliert o-i'extrac?rdinary ability. 
On appeal, the petitio~~er stares: 
? 
I liere is no cicr3~lt7: that lny work has got lots of recogr-rized reputation in the fielci [sic. Y am looking 
f(jrw2~1.d to spread iyi'i p~.ofcssi(?~~ in 'hi.S, to benefit the people here. Your recorlsideraiion is :;u 
iinl:~c)~?ant to me. I hopefilly request mj, pe-titioil can be corrsiderecl again. Thank yoti very rntreh frtr 
your tiwe and considerlttlorl. 
'T'he nppellale submission was u!>accornparlied I;y arguments or evide~~ce addressing the pertinent regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3). 'rhe j:etitiol~er indicated t13at she was not submitting a separate brief or 
evidence. 
As stated in 8 C F.K. $ li33.-3(a)(lNv). an appcal shall he surnn-tarlly Jihlnissed if llle party concerned faibs to 
idei?tily spcc~lic:Jiy an) crrrjne~)us cor,cinsion :>flaw or statcmerrt of fact for the appeal 
The petitior~er lias not sl?ecifca!ly addressed ille reasons stared 
 denial and itas not provided any additional 
evidence. The appeal must tlserefor-e be summaril> dismissed. 
ORD.ER : 
*, 
I he appeal is dismissed.

Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial

MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.

Avoid This in My Petition →

No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.