dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

DATE: OCT 1 9 2012 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Cilizen~hjr and Immigration Service." 
Adl11ini"'lralive Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusclh Ave., N.W., MS 2()90 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ahility Pursuant to Section 
203(h)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, H U.S.C § IISJ(h)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed plcase find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your casco All of the documents 
related to this matter have heen returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be adviscd that 
any further inq uiry that you might have concerning your case must he made to that office. 
If you helieve the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form 1-29013, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can he found at R CF.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Plcase he aware that H CF.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires any motion to he filed within 
JO days of the decision that the motion seeks to recollsider or rcopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chid, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
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 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), g U.S.c. § lI53(b)(l)(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, counsel 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 eligibility within the initial proceedings. 
As stated in the regulation at g C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(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. Cf /dy v. Holder, No. 11-1078,2012 WL 975567 (1st Cir. Mar. 23,2012) (where an alien 
fails to raise any legal issue regarding the Board of Immigration Appeals denial of an inadmissibility 
waiver, the Court of Appeals is deprived of jurisdiction). See also Desravines v. United States 
Attorney General, No. Og-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 specific 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.