dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

(, '" 
ldentifying data deleted to 
~vent clearly unwarranted 
inv~ of penonal privacy 
DATE: APR 1 2 2012 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
u.s. l)epartment of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts 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)(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 
suhmitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, 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. 
;tl"fL 
~ 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
( ~, 
Page 2 
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 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. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the requisite extraordinary ability 
and failed to submit extensive documentation of his sustained national or international acclaim. 
On appeal, the petitioner fails to specifically address the reasons stated for the denial and to identify any 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact on the part of the director. Instead, counsel merely 
states that the petitioner "has demonstrated that she is an alien of extraordinary ability," and that, "We 
respectfully again point to the evidence initially submitted with the original filing, as well with the 
response to the request for evidence." 
As stated in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the 
concerned party fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the 
appeal. See also Idy v. Holder, No. 11-1078, 2012 WL 975567 (1st Cir. Mar. 23, 2012) indicating 
that where a petitioner challenges the legal basis for the director's decision, but does not raise any 
legal issue (erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact) regarding the decision, the appellate 
body is deprived of jurisdiction over the issue. See also Desravines v. United States Attorney General, 
No. 08-14861, 343 F. App'x 433,435 (lIth Cir. 2009) (finding that issues not briefed on appeal are deemed 
abandoned); Tedder v. F.M.C. Corp., 590 F.2d 115, 117 (5th Cir. 1979) (deeming abandoned an issue raised 
in the statement of issues but not anywhere else in the brief). In this instance, the petitioner has not 
identified a basis for the appeal. The petitioner does not contest the director's findings and offers no 
substantive basis for the filing of the appeal. As the petitioner failed to provide any specific statement 
or argument regarding the basis of his appeal, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.