dismissed EB-1B Case: Research

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington. DC 20529 
16c~tZj-i:~sa d5ta 40 
prevent clcaa-iy unwarranted 
invmion of p:rmd privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
63 
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. $ 1153(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 
ginally decided your case. Any further Inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: 
 The application for permanent resident status under the Legal Immigration Family 
Equity (LIFE) Act was denied by the District Director, Houston, Texas, and is now before the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The director denied the application because the applicant failed to establish that she satisfied the "basic 
citizenship skills" required under section 1104(c)(2)(E) of the LIFE Act and failed to appear for her second 
interview. 
On appeal, the applicant stated that she did not receive notice to appear for a second interview. The applicant 
stated on the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal to the Administrative Appeals Unit, that she would submit a 
brief and/or additional evidence within 30 days of filing the appeal. As of the date of this decision, however, 
more than 21 months after the appeal was filed, no further documentation has been received by the AAO. 
Therefore, the record will be considered complete as presently constituted. 
The record reflects that, during her interview on April 4, 2003, the applicant did not demonstrate a sufficient 
understanding of English to be placed under oath. The record also reflects that the applicant and her attorney 
were notified by a letter dated March 12, 2004, that she was to appear for an interview on April 8, 2004. The 
letter was sent to the applicant and her attorney at their addresses of record. The record does not indicate that 
either of the letters was returned by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable. 
The applicant submitted no additional documentation with the Form I-290B. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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. 
The applicant has failed to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in this 
proceeding; therefore, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed. This decision constitutes a final notice of ineligibility.