dismissed EB-2 Case: Unknown

(b)(6)
DATE: JUN 2 5 2013 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. DepartmentofHomeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service 
Administr ative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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 in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office . 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen 
in accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly 
with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
(b)(6)
Page 2 of 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based preference visa petition was initially approved by the 
Director, Texas Service Center (director). The director served the petitioner with notice of intent to 
revoke the approval of the petition (NOIR), dated November 16, 2011. In a Notice of Revocation 
(NOR) dated July 18, 2012, the director ultimately revoked the approval of the Form I-140, 
Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. On January 2, 2013, the director dismissed the petitioner's 
motions to reopen and reconsider. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 
(AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
Section 205 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1155, provides that 
"[t]he Attorney General [now Secretary, Department of Homeland Security], may, at any time, 
for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved 
by him under section 204." The realizati~n by the director that the petition was approved in error 
may be good and sufficient cause for revoking the approval. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 
590 (BIA 1988). 
The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary pursuant to section 203(b )(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 
1153(b )(2) as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The director determined 
that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a continuing ability to pay the proffered wage beginning on 
the priority date. 
On appeal, counsel merely stated that "Within 30 days of providing this Notice of Appeal, Counsel 
will file brief, along with additional evidence, laying out erroneous conclusions of law and/or fact." 
Counsel dated the appeal January 28, 2013. On June 11, 2013, more than four months after the 
appeal was filed, the AAO received additional evidence from counsel.1 The regulation requires that 
any brief shall be submitted direc~ly to the AAO. 8 C.P.R. §§ 103.3(a)(2)(vii) and (viii). The 
record does not contain a request by counsel for an extension of the deadline to submit the 
additional evidence, nor is there any record of the AAO granting such an extension. Therefore, 
the appeal as timely filed, does not specifically identify an erroneous conclusion of law or 
statement of fact for the appeal. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(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. The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed. 
1 It is noted that counsel originally addressed the submission of additional evidence to the United 
States and Immigration Service (USCIS) lockbox in Arizona. While counsel dated the 
accompanying letter March 1, 2013, the package was shipped by the U.S. Postal Service on March 
14, 2013 and was received by USCIS on March 22, 2013, more than 45 days after the appeal was 
filed.