dismissed EB-1B Case: Applied Physics

(b)(6)
· Date: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
MAR ·2 1 2013 
INRE: · Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
·U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. MS 2090 
Washington, DC . 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and IIIimigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as Outstanding Professor or Researcher Pursuant to . 
Section 203(b)(l)(B) ofthelmmigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. '§ 1153(b)(l)(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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 further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the, law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen 
with the field office or service center that originally dec.ided your case by filing a Form I-290B, 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 file any motion directly with the AAO. Please be· aware that 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 30 days of th_e decision that the motion seeks to 
reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
. . 
- .:· . :: ' ,., -·-*' ' • ' 
. ~· ,. 
Ro~~ 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The director dismissed a subsequent combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The 
matter is now before the AAO (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The beneficiary has a doctorate in applied physics. He has filed this petition, seeking to classify 
himself as an outstanding professor or researcher pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(B) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(B). The director denied the 
petition on July 12, 2011, on the basis that the regulations make no provision for an individual to 
self-petition for the requested classification. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(c), 204.5(i)(l). 
! . 
The director dismissed the beneficiary's subsequent combined motion to reopen and reconsider. 
The beneficiary, through counsel, submits a timely appeal. Counsel has not submitted a brief or any 
further evidence on apj>eal. Counsel has failed to cite to specific errors on the part of the director or 
describe the evidence the director allegedly failed to analyze. Instead, the beneficiary suggests that, 
rather than file the petition as outstanding professor or researcher, he likely intended to file the 
petition as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and as one for whom an 
exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United 
States, under section 203(b)(2) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2) [often referenced as EB-2.] 
He provides the following as his reason for the appeal: 
This is to file a motion to reopen and reconsider. The beneficiary as a self-petitioner 
hereby amends the classification to an entrepreneur filing the employment-based 
second preference visa category (EB-2) National Interest Waiver (NIW.) 
(Emphasis added.) 
Counsel further sets forth the eligibility requirements for EB-2 classification, asserts that the 
beneficiary qualifies for the classification and requests "that EB-2 national interest waiver be 
approved" on the beneficiary's behalf. However, there is no statutory or regulatory provision 
allowing for the approval of the petitioner's request to amend the petition on appeal. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. §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 identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or · 
statement of fact for the_ appeal, 
. . 
A review of the decision reveals the director accurately set forth a legitimate basis for denial of the 
petition. The beneficiary has failed to specifically identify an erroneous conclusion of law or 
statement of fact in this proceeding. The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.