dismissed O-1B Case: Interior Design

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: EAC 03 254 53771 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: btPR 1 4 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 l(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (a)(15)(0(i) 
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. 
%~obert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 03 254 53771 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonirnrnigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service Center, and is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Off~ce (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner is an interior design fm that seeks to employ the beneficiary as an interior designer for a period of 
three years. The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary 
satisfied the regulatory standard for an alien with extraordinary ability in the arts. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner simply states as the reason for the appeal: "[tlhe beneficiary qualifies as a 
preeminent interior designer of extraordinary ability, therefore the petitioner should be approved an 0-1 status. 
There was a mistake of the facts in a reason of the denial letter that the beneficiary's school was closed on 
November 2002; it was actually closed on March 2003." Counsel for the petitioner further indicated that he 
would submit a brief and/or additional evidence within ninety days of filing the appeal. More than eight months 
have lapsed since the appeal was filed and nothing more has been submitted to the AAO. 
Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1 lOl(a)(15)(O)(i), provides , 
classification to a qualified alien who has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim or, with regard to motion 
picture and television productions, has a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement, and whose 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation, and seeks to enter the United 
States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability. 
The petitioner failed to address specifically the grounds for denial set forth in the decision of the director. The 
petitioner noted a "mistake of fact," however the mistake is not material to the director's determination that the 
beneficiary does not qualify for 0-1 classification. 
The petitioner failed to address specifically the grounds for denial set forth in the decision of the director 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part: 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party 
concerned fails to identifjr specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for 
the appeal. 
Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact 
in this proceeding, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.