dismissed EB-2 Case: Business

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
LIN 07 145 53279 
IN RE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding 
an Advanced Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(2) 
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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Chief, ~dh'r'nistrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 of 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Ofice (AAO) on appeal. 
The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(2) as a member of the professions holding an \ advanced degree. The director determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a continuing 
ability to pay the difference between the beneficiary's actual wages and the proffered wage as of the 
2003 priority date, and, noting that the petitioner had filed other employment-based petitions, 
questioned whether the petitioner could pay either the proffered wages or differences between actual 
wages and proffered wage for the remaining beneficiaries with pending petitions.. The director also 
determined that the proffered position did not require a professional, as the ETA Form 750 required 
a Master's degree in any field, as opposed to a specific field of study. 
On appeal, counsel states the petitioner was in the process of obtaining requisite financial statements 
to establish that the petitioner had the ability to pay the beneficiaries. 
Counsel dated the appeal October 31, 2007. As of this date, more than twenty-eight months later, 
the AAO has received nothing fiu-ther, and the regulation requires that any brief shall be submitted 
directly to the AAO. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.3(a)(2)(vii) and (viii). 
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. He has not even expressed disagreement with the director's 
decision. The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
' The AAO notes that the petitioner substituted the beneficiary on the instant petition for the 
original beneficiary, The instant petition was filed on April 23,2007 
accompanied by ETA Form 750 with a priority date of May 21, 2003. The petitioner had filed a 
prior 1-140 petition for the beneficiary accompanied by an ETA Form 9089 with a priority date 
of May 15, 2006. The record of proceedings contains the beneficiary's W-2 Form for tax year 
2006 that indicates he earned a salary higher than the proffered wage in 2006. This petition was 
approved on March 26, 2007. The record of proceedings contains the beneficiary's pending I- 
485 application for adjustment of status based on the earlier 1-140 petition approval.