dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

Wrjring data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacq 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofice ofAdrninistrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: $~p Q 2 2009 
LIN 07 052 50443 
PETITION: 
 lmmigrant 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: 
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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
ohn F. Grissom 
uActing Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
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 summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pusuant 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 that the petitioner had not established the sustained 
national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. 
The director denied the petition on July 30, 2008, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that she meets at least three of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
The petitioner, through counsel, submits a timely appeal and argues that the director erred as a 
matter of fact and law in his decision. However, counsel failed to elaborate on his argument, cite to 
specific errors on the part of the director or describe the testimony the director allegedly failed to 
analyze. Further, despite counsel's assertion that he would submit a brief andlor additional evidence 
to the AAO within 30 days, to date, no submission has been received. Accordingly, the record is 
considered to be complete as it now stands. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part: 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken 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. 
The petitioner's general statement regarding the director's decision is not sufficient to meet the 
requirements for filing a substantive appeal. Therefore, as the petitioner has failed to specifically 
identify an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in this proceeding, the appeal must be 
summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.