dismissed EB-1B Case: Academic Research

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
'2 , 
: ,jJg: - z f 
c FILE: 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: .J,..,r -. , ~II~JJ 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as Outstanding Professor or Researcher Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l,)(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
V Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based preference visa petition was initially approved by the Director, 
Vermont Service Center. Upon review, the director served the petitioner with notice of intent to revoke the 
approval of the petition (NOIR). In a Notice of Revocation (NOR), the director ultimately revoked the approval 
of the Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form 1-140). The matter is now before the Administralive Appeals 
Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 11 55, provides that "[tlhe Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any 
time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him 
under section 204." 
Regarding the revocation on notice of an immigrant petition under section 205 of the Act, the Board of 
lmmigration Appeals has stated: 
In Matter of Estime, . . . this Board stated that a notice of intention to revoke a visa petition is 
properly issued for "good and sufficient cause" where the evidence of record at the time the 
notice is issued, if unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a denial of the visa petition 
based upon the petitioner's failure to meet his burden of proof. The decision to revoke &ill 
be sustained where the evidence of record at the time the decision is rendered, including any 
evidence or explanation submitted by the petitioner in rebuttal to the notice of intention to 
revoke, would warrant such denial. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988)(citing Matter ofEstinze, 19 I&N 450 (BIA 1987)). Finally, 
the realization by the director that the petition was approved in error may be good and sufficient cause for 
revoking the approval. Id. 
The petitioner seeks to classify himself as an outstanding researcher pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(B) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. tj 11 53(b)(l)(B). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(1) provides: 
Any United States errployer desiring and intending to employ a professor or researcher who is 
outstanding in an academic field under section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Act mayfile un 1-140 visa 
petition for such classification. 
(Emphasis added.) The director revoked the approval of the petition because the petition was improperly filed 
by the alien seeking classification as an outstanding researcher instead of by an employer. 
On appeal, the petitioner states that he will submit a brief and/or additional evidence to this office within 30 
days. The petitioner dated the appeal May 10, 2005. As of this date, nearly four months later, this oi'fice has 
received nothing further. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the party concerned fails to 
identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 
The petitioner here has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided any 
additional evidence. He has not even expressed disagreement with the director's decision. The appeal must 
therefore be summarily dismissed. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
8 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. This denial is 
without prejudice to the filing of a new petition by a United States employer. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.