dismissed EB-2 Case: Golf Management

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Oflce of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PUBLIC COPY 
SRC 07 178 5341 7 
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. 5 103.5 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). 
m+ 
Perry   hew^ 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
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 (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a golf 
management analyst pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. 9 1 153(b)(2). In pertinent part, section 203(b)(2) of the Act provides immigrant 
classification to members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent and 
whose services are sought by an employer in the United States. As required by statute, the petition 
was accompanied by certification fi-om the Department of Labor. The director determined that the 
petitioner had not established that it had the continuing ability to pay the beneficiary the 
proffered wage beginning on the priority date of the visa petition and denied the petition 
accordingly. 
On appeal, counsel merely stated that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) erred in denying the instant petition. Counsel dated the appeal November 8, 2007 and 
indicated that he would submit brief or additional evidence to the AAO within 30 days. As of this 
date, more than 26 months later, the AAO has received nothing further, and the regulation requires 
that any brief shall be submitted directly to the AAO. 8 C.F.R. 5 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. The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.