dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
identifdng data ddew to 
 0 u.S. Citizenship 
preveut dtmfiy unwam and Immigration 
invawba of ~mtmal ar(va0 +'.tND S~C 8 Services 
PUDLlL COPY 
A FILE: 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
EAC 05 232 5 1986 
  date'^^^ 2 2 ZOO6 
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. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
u 
J~obert P. Wiernann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
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 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. $ 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
The director determined the petitioner had not established that he qualifies for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 
The appellate submission was unaccompanied by arguments or evidence addressing the pertinent regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The petitioner indicated that a brief andlor evidence would be submitted to the 
AAO within thirty days. The appeal was filed on March 21, 2006. As of this date, more than six months later, 
the AAO has received nothing further. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. fj 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.