dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

" Identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
l'UBLIC copy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: NOV 0 1 2010 
INRE: 
PETITION: 
Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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: 
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. 
The fee for a Form 1-290B is currently $585, but will increase to $630 on November 23, 2010. Any appeal or 
motion filed on or after November 23, 2010 must be filed with the $630 fee. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. 
§ 1 03.5(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, 
~~ 
~errYRhe~ 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
· I 
-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 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. 
On appeal, counsel states: 
PETITIONERIBENEFICIARY SUBMITTED AMPLE EVIDENCE OF HIS ELIGIBILITY 
AS AN ALIEN OF EXTRAORDINARY ABILITY PURSUANT TO INA SEC. 
203(b)(1)(A). THE SERVICES' [sic] DECISION TO DENY THE PETITION WAS NOT 
PROPER. PETITIONERIBENEFICIARY . . . QUALIFIES AS AN ALIEN OF 
EXTRAORDINARY ABILITY IN MANY RESPECTS AND UNDER MANY 
CATEGORIES OF THE INA PROVISION. A BRIEF DETAILING THE REASONS WHY 
[THE BENEFICIARY] IS AN ALIEN OF EXTRAORDINARY ABILITY WILL BE 
SUBMITTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER SHORTLY. 
Counsel does not specifically challenge any of the director's findings or his analyses of the evidence 
submitted for the regulatory criteria at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 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 a brief and/or evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. The 
appeal was filed on September 8, 2009. As of this date, more than thirteen months later, the AAO 
has received nothing further. 
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 the classification sought. The appeal must therefore be summarily 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.