dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

- " 
identifying data deleted to 
lreve,it clearly unwarr~nted 
~lt!'mW'sona1 privacy 
u.s. O"partment of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizcmhip and Immigration Scrvice, 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusclts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washin£lon, DC 20529-2090 
u. S. Ci tizenshi p 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: MAR 2 1 2012 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Benefic iary: 
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)(1)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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 filing 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 I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 c.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1 )(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you,,! ~, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
-Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petltIOn was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. 
The appeal will be summarily 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 in the sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established the requisite extraordinary ability through extensive documentation and sustained 
national or international acclaim. The director's decision sufficiently discussed the deficiencies in 
the petitioner's documentary evidence as it related to the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) and found that the petitioner had failed to establish sustained national or 
international acclaim and that she was among that small percentage at the very top of her field of 
endeavor. 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
On appeal, counsel asserts: "[The petitioner] has demonstrated that she IS an alien of 
extraordinary ability." 
Counsel does not specifically challenge any of the director's findings or point to specific errors 
in the director's analyses of the documentary evidence submitted for the categories of evidence 
at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Further, counsel does not explain how the documentary evidence 
submitted by the petitioner supports a finding of eligibility. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 
103.3(a)(1)(v) provides that "[a]n officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss 
any appeal when the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of 
law or statement of fact for the appeal." In this matter, the petitioner has not identified as a 
proper basis for the appeal an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in the director's 
decision. The petitioner's appellate submission offers only a general statement asserting that the 
petitioner qualifies as an alien of extraordinary ability and does not specify where the alleged 
error on the part of the director occurred. Moreover, the appellate submission was unaccompanied 
by arguments or evidence addressing the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) which the 
petitioner claims to meet. 
Counsel indicated that the petitioner would not be submitting a supplemental brief and/or evidence 
in support of her appeal. 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. The petitioner has not specifically addressed the reasons stated 
for denial and has not provided any additional evidence pertaining to her eligibility for the 
classification sought. The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.