dismissed EB-1B Case: Research

identifyingdatadeletedto
prevent clearly Wlwarranted
iIlvaaiaDofpcnoaal privacy
PUBLIC copy
U.S. Departmeutof Homelaud Security
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000
Washington, DC 20529
u.s.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
FILE:
SRC 0619751930
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: SEP 14 2007
INRE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as Outstanding Professor or Researcher Pursuant to
Section 203(b)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(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 cMe. Any further inquiry must be made to that office.
~~~~7 '~Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
..
Page 2
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas
Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be
dismissed.
The petitioner is an education and research institution. It seeks to classify the beneficiary as an
outstanding professor pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the
Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(B). According to the petition, the petitioner seeks to employ the
beneficiary in the United States as a senior research associate. While the director requested evidence
that the petitioner had offered the beneficiary a qualifying tenure or tenure-track position and reiterated
this procedural history in the final denial, the director's sole basis of denial was a determination 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.
On appeal, counsel merely stated that the most obvious factual error was a determination that the
petitioner had not offered the beneficiary a qualifying job and that counsel would submit a brief and/or
evidence to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) within 30 days providing "[0]ther examples of
conclusions inconsistent with the evidence presented."
Counsel dated the appeal May 15, 2007. As of August 23, 2007, more than three months later, the
AAO had received nothing further. 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. As of this date, approximately three weeks later, this office has received no response.
As stated in 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the party concerned
fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion oflaw or statement of fact for the appeal.
Counsel here has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial, the one specific allegation of
error on appeal was not a basis of the director's decision, and has not provided any additional evidence.
The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.