dismissed EB-1A Case: Peking Opera

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: - Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
EAC 04 063 52292 Date: OC1 1 1 2005 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. 6 1 153(b)( t )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office tbat originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
bt&b 
If Roben P. wiernain, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative AppeaIs Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be sumrnariIy 
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. 8 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. 
On appeal, the petitioner states: 
I was approved by INS to work fok, to perform Peking Opera on 
October 2, 2003 in America. This indicated that I am equipped with very unique ability in Peking 
Opera. During the performance tour in America, I was deeply impressed by American people's 
eagerness to know and understand the traditional Chinese culture, Peking Opera. I feel I have such an 
[sic] commitment to continue this kind of performance. 
The appellate submission was unaccompanied by arguments or evidence addressing the pertinent regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3).' 
The petitioner indicated that a brief and/or evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 90 days. The 
appeal was filed on July 22, 2004. As of this date, more than fourteen months later, the AAO has received 
nothing further. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. 3 103.3(a)(l)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the party concerned fails to 
identify specifically any erroneous concIusion 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. 
The record reflects that the petitioner has been present in the United States since January 8, 2000, but there is no 
evidence showing that the petitioner has been involved in any work related to Peking Opera performances during the last 
five years. Specifically, the petitioner has been the beneficiary of an approved P-3 nonimmigrant petition that authorized 
him to work in the United States as an artistlentertniner from October 2, 2003 to January 1, 2004 (SRC 03 213 50833, 
filed by Song Shan Culture Center Inc. of Lilburn, Georgia). Astonishingly, the petitioner has submitted no evidence of 
his work as a performer even during that authorized period.