dismissed EB-2 Case: Software Engineering

(b)(6)
DATE: 
JUl 2 4 2014 
INRE : Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Dep~rtmentofllomeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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. § 1153(b )(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER : 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions . If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
J~rt 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition and the matter 
is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary pursuant to section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(A) as a Senior Software Engineer. The director 
determined that the record did not establish that the beneficiary was qualified for the offered 
position or 
the requested classification as an advanced degree professional under section 203(b)(2)(A) ofthe Act. 
In filing the appeal on April 21, 2014, counsel stated only that a brief would be submitted within 30 
days. As of this date, we have received nothing further from counsel, and the regulation requires that 
any brief shall be submitted directly to the AAO . 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.3(a)(2)(vii) and (viii). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) states than 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. 
In filing the appeal, counsel did not state the basis for the petitioner's appeal and the petitioner has not 
provided any additional evidence. He has not expressed disagreement with the director's decision. The 
appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.