dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

identifying datn deleted to 
prevent ckmly .>;r d 
invaJiaPP ofpoworl p)rewy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PILE: 
 Wli Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: JAW 1 7 2887 
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 1 153(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. 
2 Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
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 
summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. The director determined the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary has 
earned the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel states: "The Service Center erred in its decision and in the time it gave Petitioner and 
Beneficiary to respond to its letter dated December 29, 2005." 
On December 29, 2005, the director issued a notice of intent to deny informing the petitioner of its failure to 
demonstrate that the beneficiary meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The 
director further stated that the record failed "to establish that the beneficiary is one of that small percentage of 
individuals who have risen to the very top of his field of endeavor." The petitioner was afforded 30 days in 
which to respond to the director's notice of intent to deny. The petitioner failed to respond to the director's notice 
within the time period specified by the director. 
On March 6, 2006, the director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner had failed to establish that the 
beneficiary meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). We concur with the 
director's findings. 
In this case, the petitioner was put on notice of the deficiencies in the record and given a reasonable 
opportunity to respond before the visa petition was adjudicated. The petitioner's appellate submission 
includes no arguments specifically challenging the director's findings or evidence pertaining to the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). On appeal, counsel indicated that a brief and/or evidence would be submitted 
to the AAO within 30 days. The appeal was filed on April 3, 2006. As of this date, more than nine months 
later, the AAO has received nothing further. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the party concerned fails to 
identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 
The petitioner has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided any additional 
evidence relevant to the classification sought. The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.