dismissed EB-2 Case: Engineering

identieing data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of per ~nal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: NOV 0 9 2009 
SRC 08 207 51384 
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. $ 1 153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELFREPRESENTED 
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. $ 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 
the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center, and 
now the matter is before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner designs and manufactures ultrasonic instruments. It seeks to employ the beneficiary 
permanently in the United States as a research and development engineer (ultrasound). The director 
found that the petitioner had failed to submit all required initial evidence. Specifically, the director 
found that the petition was submitted without evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary is a 
professional holding an advanced degree. The director denied the petition accordingly. 
On appeal, the petitioner has failed to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact 
made by the director. The petitioner acknowledges that it failed to submit the required initial evidence, 
and states that its failure was due to a "preparation mistake." Although the petitioner has submitted a 
copy of the beneficiary's Doctor of Philosophy diploma on appeal, this does not change the fact that the 
petitioner failed to submit all required initial evidence with the petition. As stated in 8 C.F.R. 5 
103.2(b)(8)(ii), where all required initial evidence is not submitted with the petition, USCIS may 
deny the petition for this reason. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. fj 103.3(a)(l)(v), any appeal that fails to specifically identify any erroneous 
conclusion of law or statement of fact will be summarily dismissed. 
A review of the decision reveals that the director accurately set forth a legitimate basis for denial of the 
petition. On appeal, the petitioner has not specifically addressed the basis for denial. The appeal must 
therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.