dismissed EB-1A

dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

📅 Date unknown 👤 Individual 📂 Unknown

Decision Summary

The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner failed to submit a brief or evidence to support the appeal. The petitioner did not identify any specific erroneous conclusions of law or fact in the original denial, which is a requirement for an appeal to proceed.

Criteria Discussed

Failure To Identify Erroneous Conclusion Of Law Or Statement Of Fact

View Full Decision Text

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. 
Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 092 52874 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California 
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 the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner indicated that a brief andlor evidence would be submitted to the AAO within sixty 
days. 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 appeal was filed on November 3, 2004. As of this date, 
more than five 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. The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial

MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.

Avoid This in My Petition →

No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.