dismissed EB-1B Case: Engineering

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
inv- of ~:.-wtrhi privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: LIN 06 069 5 1555 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: FE~ 2007 
IN RE: 
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. 8 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 office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Ld"-6\h. 
Y~obert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 06 069 51555 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: 
 The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a manufacturer of powered surgical instruments. 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. 5 1153(b)(l)(B). The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the 
 . 
United States as a process engineer. The director determined that the petitioner had not established that 
the beneficiary is recognized internationally as outstanding in his academic field, as required for 
classification as an outstanding researcher. The director also determined that the petitioner had not 
established that it had offered the beneficiary a permanent job as of the date of filing. 
On appeal, counsel merely stated that the evidence of record was sufficient and that he would submit a 
brief andlor evidence to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) within 30 days. The director 
received the appeal on September 19, 2006. As of February 8, 2007, more than four months later, the 
AAO had received nohng hrther. Thus, on that date, this office contacted counsel by facsimile, 
advising that we had received no additional materials, inquiring as to whether anything had been 
submitted and requesting a copy of any additional materials submitted. The facsimile advised that 
failure to respond to our inquiry within five business days may result in the summary dismissal of the 
appeal. In response, counsel advised that he did not file a brief or submit evidence in support of the 
appeal. 
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. 
Counsel here has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided any 
additional evidence. The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.