dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

identifjring data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. 1)epartrnenl of Homeland Securil) 
1 I.S. Cili~ensllip and l~l~~~~igralic,n Sur~ici's 
(?/rim 01 .~ld~~r~~~;,s~r~~ri~~~ , I,,,IcY,/.~ MS 2ll~lll 
Washineton. I)C 20529-20'10 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
F1l.E: - Office: TtXAS SERVICE CENI'ER Date: DEC 0 1 2010 
SRC09 11752158 
APPI.ICATION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of tlie Immigration and Nationality Act. 8 U.S.C. 
1 153(b)( 1 )(A) 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
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 furtlier inquiry tliat you might have concerning your case must he made to that office. 
If you believe tlie law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision. or you have additional 
information tliat you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. l'hc 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.K. $ 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a For111 I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion. 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires tliat any motion must be liled 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
10'dhGAC /I Perry Rhew 
r Chief. Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: I'he employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Tcxas 
Scrvicc Ccntcr, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be sunlmarily dismissed. 
I'hc pctitioncr 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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A). as an alien 
of extraordinary ability. The director determined that the petitioner had not established extraordinary 
ability through extensive documentation and sustained national or intemational acclain~. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extcnsivc documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3). The implementing rcgulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or intemational acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement. 
specifically a major. internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award. the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). 
The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On March 6. 2009, the petitioner submitted a Form 1-140. Imnligrant Petition for Alien Worker. a 
statcment and additional evidence. The director denied the petition on May 21.2009 and the petitioner 
submitted a timcly Form 1-290B. Notice of Appeal or Motion on June 19, 2009. In the Form I-290B. 
counsel stated that he would submit a brief and additional evidcncc within 30 days. As of this date, the 
AAO has not received any additional evidence from counsel or the petitioner. Thcrefhre. the record is 
complete. 
On appeal, counsel fails to specify how the director made any erroneous conclusion of law or statement 
of fact in denying the petition. Counsel failed to specilically address any of the director's 
determinations and to provide any specific argument detailing the director's alleged errors. Counsel 
provided no further evidence on appeal. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v) state. in pertinent part: 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when 
the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law 
or statement of fact for the appeal. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely 
with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to 
identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statcmcnt of fact in this proceeding, the 
petitioner has not sustained that burden. Therefore, the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed