dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

PUBLIC COPY 
~~ data deleted lo 
U.S. Department of Horneladd Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: DEC 2 1 2005 
EAC 04 096 50301 
IN RE: 
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. 
1 Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont 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)(I)(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 
sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On Form I-290B counsel stated that the petitioner's "application was denied arbitrarily and capriciously. He 
was aat accorded due process and the opportunity to submit additional evidence of his preeminence. He would 
like to do so now. We will forward proof that he meets the requirements of preeminence in the arts." Counsel 
indicated that she would send a brief andlor additional evidence to the AAO within 30 days. Counsel dated the 
appeal February 3, 2005. As of this date, over ten months later, the AAO has received nothing further from 
counsel or the petitioner. On December 2,2005, the AAO sent counsel a facsimile asking her to submit copies 
of any brief or evidence submitted on appeal and informing counsel that failure to respond within five business 
days could result in the summary dismissal of the petitioner's appeal. As of this date, over 13 days later, counsel 
has not responded. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(a)(l)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the party concerned fails to 
identie specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. Counsel here has not 
addressed the stated reasons for denial, has not specifically identified any factual or legal errors in the director's 
decision and has not provided any additional evidence. The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.