dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBUCCOPy 
DATE: 
AUG 2 1 2012 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship amllmrnigralion Ser\icc~ 
Administrative Appeal~ Office (1\1\0) 
20 Massachusetl~ I\ve .. N.W .. MS 2()lJO 
Washington. DC 20:\2lJ-2()l)() 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ahility Pursuant I{) Soeli{)n 
203(h)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed plcase find Ihe decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your casco All of Ihc documenls 
relatcd to Ihis mailer have been returned to the office thai originally decided your case. Please he advised Ihal 
any further inquiry Ihal you mighl have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you helieve the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision. or you hav"C additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a mol ion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form 1-29013, 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 liIe any motion 
directly with the AAO. Plcase be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires any motion 10 he filet] within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or rcopen. 
Thank you, 
#'ff--It=--
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
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 dismissed, 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 2OJ(b)(l)(A) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U,S,C § 1 153(b)(1)(A), as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. In a detailed, eight-page decision, 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. Specifically, the director determined that the petitioner submitted qualifying 
evidence under only one of the regulatory criteria, of which a petitioner must meet at least three, and 
that the evidence in the aggregate did not establish the petitioner's sustained national or international 
acclaim. 
At each stage of the process (accompanying the initial petition, in response to the director's request for 
evidence (RFE), and on appeal), counsel has simply listed the evidence rather than briefing how this 
evidence relates to the eligibility requirements for the classification sought. The most substantial 
guidance was counsel's statement in response the RFE, in which counsel listed four letters that should 
be considered under the contributions of major significance criterion. 
On appeal, counsel does not specifically address the reasons for which the director concluded that the 
petitioner's evidence failed to satisfy the requirements of each criterion, and counsel also fails to 
identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact on the part of the director. Instead. 
counsel simply asserts that the director erred as a matter of law and as a matter of fact in finding that 
the petitioner did not satisfy the requirements of the regulations, without identifying any specific 
error attributable to the director. On the Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, counsel merely 
listed the regulatory requirements that, in his opinion, the AAO should presume that the petitioner 
meets. In the subsequent submission, the only specific conclusion counsel attempts to address is the 
director's linding that the petitioner failed to provide "proper" translations for the published material in 
the record. The single translation the petitioner submits on appeal, however, is not certified as required 
under 8 C.F.R. § IOJ.2(b)(3). Moreover, counsel makes no attempt to address the director's concern 
that the published material was not "about" the petitioner as required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Although the petitioner provides additional evidence in addition to the translation. counsel offers no 
explanation regarding how this additional evidence demonstrates error on the part of the director or 
even to which of the regulatory criteria this evidence relates. 
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. q [dy v. Holder, No. 11-1078, 2012 WL 975567 (1st Cir. Mar. 23, 2(12) (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 1'. United Slates 
Attorney General, No. 08-14861. 343 F. App'x 433, 435 (11th Cir. 2009) (linding 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 nOl 
contest the director's specific findings and offers no substantive basis for the filing of the appeal. As the 
Page 3 
petitioner failed to provide any specific statement or argument regarding the basis of his appeal, the 
appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.