dismissed EB-1A Case: Not Specified

PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: DEC I 9 2011 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(I)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please 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. 
If 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 reopen. The 
specific requirements for fil ing such a request can be found at 8 C.F .R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office 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. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
AJ!)udncL .J:' rperry Rhew 
I v Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
Service Center and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will 
be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203 (b)(1 )(A) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1 )(A), as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the requisite extraordinary ability 
and failed to submit extensive documentation of his sustained national or international acclaim. 
On appeal, the petitioner fails to specifically address the reasons stated for the denial and to identifY any 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact on the part of the director. Instead, the petitioner 
merely states that he will either provide stronger evidence for a particular criterion, or that he would 
submit further evidence of the criteria under which he felt he qualified. Although the petitioner 
provides additional evidence, he offers no explanation regarding how this additional evidence 
demonstrates error on the part ofthe director based upon the record that was before her. 
Additionally, on appeal the petitioner submits two articles relating to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). On 
May 6, 2010, the director issued a request for evidence addressing this regulatory criterion. The 
purpose of the request for evidence is to elicit further information that clarifies whether the petitioner 
has established the beneficiary's eligibility for the benefit sought as of the filing date of the petition. 
See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(8) and (12). The petitioner's failure to submit requested evidence that 
precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). 
As in the present matter, where the director put the petitioner on notice of a deficiency in the evidence 
and gave the petitioner an opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence 
offered for the first time on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). If the petitioner had wanted the director to consider the 
submitted evidence, it should have submitted the documents in response to the director's request for 
evidence. Id. Under the circumstances, the AAO need not, and does not, consider the sufficiency of the 
evidence submitted on appeal. 
As stated in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the 
concerned party fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the 
appeal. In this instance, the petitioner has not identified a basis for the appeal. The petitioner does not 
contest the director's findings and offers no substantive basis for the filing of the appeal. As the 
petitioner failed to provide any specific statement or argument regarding the basis of his appeal, the 
appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.