dismissed EB-1B Case: Research Science

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PETITION: ,Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Outstanding Professor or Researcher pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 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 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
'ir 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Senice 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is an educational institution. It seeks to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based 
immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
8 1153(b)(l)(B), as an outstanding professor or researcher. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as a 
"Research Scientist." The director found that the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is 
recognized internationally as outstanding in his academic field. 
On appeal, counsel attested to the beneficiary's eligbility and asserted that he (counsel) would submit a brief 
andlor evidence to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) within 30 days. Counsel dated the appeal August 9, 
2005. As of November 17,2005, more than three months later, the AAO had received nothng 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 with five business days may result in the summary 
dismissal of the appeal. In response, counsel advised that he had not submitted anythng further. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(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.