dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

1 
c identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPT 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
I and Immigration 
LIN 07 067 5 1733 
IN RE: 
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. 
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 I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
A Y$ ng F. Chief, Grissom 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 on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A). The director determined 
the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for 
classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel merely stated that she would submit a brief andlor evidence to the Administrative 
Appeals Office (AAO) within 30 days. Counsel dated the appeal August 29, 2008. As of this date, 
more than 10 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. 
Counsel here has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided any 
additional evidence. She has not even expressed disagreement with the director's decision. The appeal 
must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.