dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
LIN 08 162 5 1051 
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: 
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. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form 1-2908, 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. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
V 
pPerry Rhew 
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 pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(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 May 21, 2009, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
The petitioner submits a timely appeal wherein he stated that he would provide a basis for the appeal 
in a "brief summary and explanation with evidence to meet the regulatory criteria," which he would 
submit in 30 days. However, despite the petitioner's assertion that he would submit additional 
materials to the AAO within 30 days, to date, no submission has been received. 
As such, the petitioner did not elaborate on his argument for appeal, cite to specific errors on the part 
of the director or describe the evidence the director allegedly failed to analyze. 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. 
As the petitioner failed to state any reasons for his appeal, such appeal 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.