dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

US. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
OfJice ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
identifying data deleted to 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
prevent c lead y unwarranted 
 u. S. Citizenship 
invaion of F~TSO"~~ pfivaclr 
 and Immigration 
AUG 2 6 2009 
LIN 07 253 56137 
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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. 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 $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Sel(n F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
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 summarily 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. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained 
national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. 
The director denied the petition on May 22, 2008, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3). 
The petitioner, through counsel, submits a timely appeal and provides the following reason for the 
appeal: 
has qualified for this classification: he has extraordinary ability in the 
sciences which has been demonstrated by sustained national and international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation.. . All arguments necessary to establish that - 
is an alien of extraordinary ability were made in the petition and in the response to 
the request for evidence filed with USCIS. 
Counsel's general statements contain no allegation or argument regarding an erroneous conclusion 
of law or statement of fact to be reviewed. Counsel does not specify what the director's purported 
errors were and does not refer to any specific issue to support his claim. Counsel's general statement 
regarding the director's error does not meet the requirements for the filing of a substantive appeal. 
Accordingly, the record is considered to be complete as it now stands. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part: 
An 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. 
The petitioner's general statement regarding the director's decision is not sufficient to meet the 
requirements for filing a substantive appeal. Therefore, as the petitioner has failed to specifically 
identifl an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in this proceeding, the appeal must be 
summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.