dismissed EB-2 Case: Software

identiQing data deleted to 
* prevent clearly unv~arranted 
invasion of 2ersoi1d privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Of$ce of Administration Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COP 
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. 9 
1 1 53(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 
e decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
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 classifl 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 or an alien of exceptional ability. The director denied the petition as DOL 
found the petitioner, in accordance with 20 C.F.R. 655.855, to have engaged in certain actions 
rendering them subject to mandatory debarment under section 212(n)(2)(C)(i) and (ii) of the 
Act, as amended. 
 As a result of the debarment, 
 no immigrant visa petitions and no H 
(excluding H-lBl), L, 0, or P-1 non-immigrant visa petitions filed by Software Research 
Group, Inc., shall be approved by the USCIS from June 1, 2008, and ending on May 31,2009. 
Accordingly, the director denied this petition on February 12,2009. 
On appeal, counsel merely stated that a brief and additional supporting documents would be 
submitted in 30 days. 
Counsel dated the appeal March 10, 2009. As of this date, more than four months later, the 
AAO has received nothing fiuther. 
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 identifl specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for 
the appeal. Moreover, the petitioner failed to state a reason for the appeal and failed to submit a 
brief. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(vii) and (viii). 
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.