dismissed EB-1A Case: Sports Management

(b)(6)
DATE: 
APR 2 0 201�FFICE: 
IN RE: PETITIONER: 
BENEFICIARY: 
NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetls 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)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-2908) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:Uwww.uscis.gov/fonns for the latest information on fee, tiling location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
�D� 
Ron Rosenberg r---
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant 
visa petition. The petitioner, who is also the beneficiary, appealed the decision to the Administrative 
Appeals Office (AAO). The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
In his petition, filed on May 22, 2014, receipt number the petitioner indicated 
that he is seeking the classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the field of sports 
management, pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). In part 2 of the petition, the petitioner indicated that he was filing the 
petition to amend a previously filed petition, with receipt number: .1 In Part 3 of 
the Notice of Appeal or Motion, Form I-290B, "Information About the Appeal or Motion," the 
petitioner checked the box that states "I am filing an appeal to the AAO. My brief and/or additional 
evidence will be submitted to the AAO within 30 calendar days of filing the appeal."2 In a statement 
accompanying the Form I-290B, the petitioner provided the following statement in its entirety:3 
Basis for applying for the employment-based immigrant in SPORTS, previous 
application were submitted prior to securing all necessary evidences so as to apply for 
a re-entry permit since all supporting evidences were locked in my house in the 
Philippines. Already requested family members to send awards, certifications, etc. 
for submission, hence respectfully requesting the Service to allow at least 30 days for 
submission of evidences. 
As of this date, over eight months after the petitioner filed his appeal on July 22, 2014, the petitioner 
has not filed a brief or additional evidence. 
1 In the previously filed petition, the petitioner sought the classification as a multinational executive 
or manager, pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(C) the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C). On June 2, 2014, the director denied the 
petition, concluding that "[t]here is no statute or regulation that would allow for a beneficiary to self-petition under the 
requested classification." 
2 In Part 1 of the Form I-290B, the petitioner listed his previously filed petition receipt number, and 
in Part 3 of the form, he stated that the date of the adverse decision that he was appealing was June 9, 2014. The record 
does not contain a June 9, 2014 decision. On appeal, the petitioner submitted a copy of the director's June 19, 2014 
decision on the extraordinary ability petition and referenced in his accompanying statement that he needed to collect 
additional evidence, including awards, one type of initial evidence for the extraordinary ability classification. 
Accordingly, the petitioner indicated his intent to appeal the director's June 19, 2014 decision on 
which the petitioner indicated amends If we concluded that the petitioner intends to appeal the 
director's denial of the multinational executive or manager classification, the petitioner has not shown that the appeal is 
timely. The appeal was filed over 33 days after the director issued the adverse decision on June 2, 2014. See 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.8(b ). We would therefore reject the appeal as untimely under the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(1). In 
the alternative, we would summarily dismiss the appeal because the petitioner has not identified specifically any 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. See 8 C.P.R.§ 103.3(a)(1)(v). 
3 We note several grammatical errors which did not bear on our finding regarding whether the petitioner filed a 
substantive appeal. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v) provides, in pertinent part, we "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 case, although the petitioner has filed an appeal, he has not specifically identified any erroneous 
conclusion of law or statement of fact in the director's June 19, 2014 decision, denying his petition 
under the "alien of extraordinary ability" classification. The director denied the petition upon finding 
that the petitioner "has not submitted any evidence to show that he has received a major, 
internationally recognized prize or award [under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)], or that he 
has fulfilled at least three of the ten criteria listed in the regulations" at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
On appeal, the petitioner has not identified specific evidence in the record that establishes that he 
meets the initial evidentiary requirements set forth under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
The petitioner has also not provided any legal support or evidence to show that the director's 
findings in the June 19, 2014 decision are erroneous. 
As the petitioner has not specifically identified any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact 
for the appeal, we must therefore summarily dismiss the appeal, pursuant to the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.