dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Arts

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Oflce of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
8 identifying data deleted to 
prevent c Etjarl y unwarranted 
invasion 3t perscnal pnvacl 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
SRC 02 249 53221 JULb 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1 153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. !j 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. !j 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
\elting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: 
 The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The AAO will 
summarily dismiss the appeal. 
8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part, "[aln 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." 
On the Form I-290B Notice of Appeal, filed on December 4,2003, counsel indicated that a brief would 
be forthcoming within thirty days. The AAO did not receive the appeal until June 30, 2009. To date, 
more than five and a half years after the filing of the appeal, careful review of the record reveals no 
subsequent submission; all other documentation in the record predates the issuance of the notice of 
decision. 
An attachment to the appeal form reads: 
USCIS has used an incorrect standard in reviewing the petition . . . for a national interest 
waiver as an alien of exceptional ability in the arts. The Commissioner has found that 
an alien of exceptional ability in the arts, who Wers cultural interests, is eligible for a 
national interest waiver. Ample evidence was submitted to show [the petitioner's] 
exceptional ability as an artist and his recognition in the industry in the U.S. Legal 
authorities will be submitted in a separate brief within 30 days. 
The above statement makes no specific allegation of error. The director did not state that aliens of 
exceptional ability in the arts are categorically ineligible for the national interest waiver, and it is clear 
from section 203(b)(2) of the Act that exceptional ability in the arts does not automatically qualify an 
alien for the waiver. Therefore, counsel's assertions are not relevant to the stated grounds for denial. 
The bare assertion that the director relied on an "incorrect standard," without identikng that standard 
or showing it to be incorrect, is not a sufficient basis for a substantive appeal. 
Inasmuch as counsel has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of 
fact as a basis for the appeal, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.