dismissed EB-2 Case: Software Engineering

U.S. Department of .Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
5 
FILE: EAC 06 095 52279 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
OCT 0 6 2008 
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. $ 1153(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. 
Robert P. ~ie&, Chief 
4 Administrative Appeals Office 
4 
EAC 06 095 52279 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner provides consulting services. It seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the 
United States as a software engineer pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(2). As required by statute, an ETA Form 9089, Application for Alien 
Employment Certification approved by the Department of Labor (DOL), accompanied the petition. 
Upon reviewing the petition, the director determined that the beneficiary did not satisfy the minimum 
level of education stated on the labor certification. Specifically, the director determined that the job did 
not require a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
On appeal, counsel merely stated that the director erred in understanding the minimum job requirements 
and that he would submit a brief andlor evidence to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) within 
30 days. 
Counsel dated the appeal February 6,2007. As of September 5,2008, more than 19 months later, the 
AAO had received nothing further. Thus, on that date, this office contacted counsel by facsimile, 
advising that we had received no additional materials, inquiring as to whether anyhng had been 
submitted and requesting a copy of any additional materials submitted. The facsimile advised that 
failure to respond to our inquiry within five business days may result in the summary dismissal of the 
appeal. As of this date, approximately four weeks later, hs office has received no response. 
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 identi@ 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.