dismissed EB-1B Case: Electronic Engineering

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W , Rm. A3042 
IF"'$~~L "r- - Wash~ngton, DC 20529 
.ti.% ~$4 j z2!, - ( 
',"-'3J'<,.A :~q~Yi'.. @pi a*# ?p." - %'-"-" *2$g3@i- 
, , - "':q; p" w):*li>, 
U.S. Citizenship 
'bi, and Immigration 
Services 
Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: , 
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. 3 1 153(b)(l)(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the ~ffice that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
VJ 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Adm~nistrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a laser manufacturer. It seeks to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding researcher pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(l)(B). The petitioner 
seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as an electronic engineer. The director 
determined that the petitioner had not established the significance of the beneficiary's research, or that the 
beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding in his academic field, as required for classification as an 
outstanding researcher. 
On appeal, counsel merely stated that the director's decision "is unsound as beneficiary meets the criteria for 
EBlB classification." She indicated that she was "gathering information in response to denial" and that she 
would submit a brief andlor evidence to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) withn 45 days. Counsel dated 
the appeal May 15,2004. As of May 26, 2005, ths office had received nothing further. Thus, on that date ths 
office inquired of counsel as to whether she had submitted any supplemental materials. In response, she affirmed 
that she had not because the petitioner "elected to have the case reviewed on existing record." 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the party concerned fails to 
identi6 specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 
Counsel here has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided any additional 
evidence. She has merely expressed disagreement with the director's decision. The appeal must therefore be 
summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.