dismissed EB-2 Case: Unknown

(b)(6)
DATE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
APR 2 8 2.014 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Uepartmcnt of Homeland Secu rity 
U.S. Cit:zcns hi p and l mmigralion Service 
Adminislr at ive Appeals Office (AAO ) 
20 Massachu se tls Ave ., N.W., MS 2090 
Was hinl!ton. 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)(A) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(A) 
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/fo•·ms 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. 
;;;:577~ 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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 dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification for the beneficiary as an "alien of exceptional ability," pursuant to 
section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2)(A). 
The petitioner further asserts that the beneficiary qualifies for blanket labor certification pursuant 
to 20 C.F.R. § 656.5, Schedule A, Group II. 
The director determined that the petitioner 1) had not established that the beneficiary is "an 
individual of exceptional ability," 2) did not establish that the offered job as listed on the ETA 
Form 9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification, "requires an alien of 
exceptional ability," 3) did not "demonstrate[] that the beneficiary met the minimum 
requirements " of the position offered as listed on the ETA Form 9089, 4) did not establish 
compliance with 20 C.F.R. § 656.10(d)(3) regarding the notice of filing, and 5) did "not 
establish[] its ability to pay [the proffered wage] as of the priority date." 
Part 3 of Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion allows for "a statement explaining any 
erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the decision being appealed." Part 3 indicates that 
"detailed verification of employment and financial viability will be submitted in support of the 
two relevant criteria." The petitioner does not specifically challenge any of the director 's 
findings or point to specific errors in the director's analyses. 
The petitioner indicated that a brief and/or evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 
days. The petitioner filed the appeal on November 18, 2013. As of this date, almost five months 
later, the AAO has received nothing further. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v) provides that "[a]n officer to whom an appeal is taken 
shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party concerned fails to identify specifically any 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal." In this matter, the petitioner has 
not identified as a proper basis for the appeal an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of 
fact in the director 's decision. 
As the petitioner did not contest any of the specific findings of the director and offers no 
substantive basis for the filing of the appeal, the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N 
Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.