dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

(b)(6)
DATE: 
MAR 0 9 2013 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washing~m,DC 2052~-2090 
U.S. Litizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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 
INSTRUCfiONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents related 
to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that any further 
inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The specific 
requirements for filing such a 
motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion directly with the 
AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 30 days of the 
decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will 
be rejected and, in the alternative, summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the requisite 
extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive documentation of his sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
In order to properly file an appeal, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(i) provides that the affected 
party or the attorney or representative of record must submit the complete appeal within 30 days of 
service of the unfavorable decision. If the decision was sent by the traditional mail route, the appeal 
must be filed within 33 days. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.8(b ). The date of filing is not the date of submission, 
but the date of actual receipt with the required fee. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(i). 
The record indicates that the service center director issued the decision on June 29, 2012, by facsimile. 
As the decision was not sent by mail, the petitioner was afforded 30 days to file the appeal, of which the 
service center director properly notified the petitioner. Neither the Act nor the pertinent regulations 
grant the AAO authority to extend this time limit. See Matter of Liadov, 23 I&N Dec. 990 (BIA 2006). 
Even if the appeal was delayed by the overnight delivery service, the error would not warrant special 
consideration of the appeal. !d. 
The appeal was due by July 29, 2012. It was not received by the service center until August 1, 2012, or 
33 days after the decision was issued. It is noted that service by facsimile is immediate notification 
unlike service by mail. Consequently, the petitioner was afforded 30 days to file the appeal rather than 
33 days. Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(2) states that, if an untimely appeal meets the 
requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider, the appeal must be treated as a motion, 
and a decision must be made on the merits of the case. The official having jurisdiction over a motion is 
the official who made the last decision in the proceeding, in this case the Director of the Texas Service 
Center. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). The director determined that the late appeal did not meet the 
requirements of a motion and forwarded the matter to the AAO. 
If timely, the appeal would be summarily dismissed. On appeal, the petitioner fails to specifically 
address the reasons stated for the denial and to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement 
of fact on the part of the director. Instead, the petitioner merely claims to also meet multiple 
additional criteria and states that the director ' s decision was "largely premised on the unilateral 
imposition of novel, substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth in the 
regulations, as well as a fundamental misinterpretation of the facts, and therefore is arbitrary, 
capricious or an abuse of discretion, or unsupported by substantial evidence." The petitioner failed 
to provide any specific examples of the errors he attributes to the director. 
(b)(6)
. -
Page3 
The reason for filing an appeal is to provide an affected party with the means to remedy what he or she 
perceives as an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact within a decision in a previous 
proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v). Without such an error specifically identified within the 
appeal, the affected party has failed to identify the basis for the appeal. If the petitioner does not explain 
the specific aspects of the decision that he considers to be incorrect, he has failed to meaningfully 
identify the reasons for taking an appeal. In order to review the appeal, it would therefore be necessary 
to search through the record and speculate on what possible errors the petitioner claims. Matter of 
Valencia, 19 I&N Dec. 354, 355 (BIA 1986). 
It is insufficient to merely assert that the director made an improper determination. See Matter of 
Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988) (finding that failure to specify reasons for an appeal is 
grounds for summary dismissal under regulations similar to those governing the AAO). 
As stated in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the 
concerned party fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the 
appeal. Cf. Idy v. Holder, 674 F.3d 111, 116 (1st Cir. 2012) (where an alien fails to raise any legal issue 
regarding the Board of Immigration Appeals denial of an inadmissibility waiver, the Court of Appeals is 
deprived of jurisdiction). See also Desravines v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 343 F. App'x 433, 435 (11th Cir. 
2009) (finding that issues not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned); Tedder v. F.M.C. Corp., 590 
F.2d 115, 117 (5th Cir. 1979) (deeming abandoned an issue raised in the statement of issues but not 
anywhere else in the brief). In this instance, the petitioner has not identified a basis for the appeal. The 
petitioner does not contest the director's findings and offers no substantive basis for the filing of the 
appeal. In this case, the regulation mandates the summary dismissal of the appeal. As the petitioner 
failed to provide any specific statement or argument regarding the basis of his appeal, the appeal would 
be summarily dismissed if timely. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.