dismissed EB-1A Case: Photography

dJRT If' f'(lPV 
DATE: JUN 1 9 2012 Ollice: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Ilepartmcnt of Homeland SecuritJ 
U,S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Offk:e (1\1\0) 
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. § 11S3(b)(1)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Ollice in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have heen 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 AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen with 
the field office or service center that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal 
or Motion, with a fcc of $630. The specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5. Do not file any motion directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) 
requires any motion to be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~qf~ 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Orfice 
www.uscis.gov 
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 (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. 
Specifically, the director concluded that the petitioner satisfied only two of the criteria set forth at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), of which a petitioner must satisfy at least three. 
The petitioner's field, as he indicated on the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, is that of 
a photographer. A'i a result, the published material considered under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) must be 
about him and related to his work as a photographer. The director's decision noted that the submitted 
evidence under this criterion was related to the petitioner's exploits as a hiker or as an explorer instead 
of as a photographer. The director further concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated that the 
published material appeared in professional or major trade publications or in other major media. 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, counsel merely 
states that the petitioner has been written about in the national and international press. While the 
petitioner did provide evidence of national and international coverage, counsel fails to address the 
director's specific conclusion that the record lacks evidence of published material about the alien in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field 
for which classification is sought. 
As stated in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(I)(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. Cf Idy v. Holder, No. 11-1078,2012 WL 975567 (1st Cir. Mar. 23, 2(12) (where an alien 
fails to raise any legal issue regarding the Board of Immigration Appeals denial of an inadmissibility 
waiver, the Court of Appeals is deprived of jurisdiction). See also Desravines v. United States 
Attorney General, No. 08-14861, 343 F. App'x 433, 435 (11th Cir. 2009) (tinding 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 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.