dismissed EB-2 Case: Unknown

(b)(6)
•. ( -- •J.;. 
- ;-
DATE: 
APR 3 0 2013 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficial) 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
- U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS2090 
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)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U .S.C. § 1153(b )(2)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. · 
Thank you, 
( 
. Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
. petition, which is now. before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will 
be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks clas'sification . as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(A). The director stated 
that ".[t]he petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary met the minimum requirements at the 
time the Form ETA-9089was accepted. Therefore, the beneficiary cannot be found to be qualified 
. for the position." The direct()r's decision sufficiently discussed the deficiencies in the petition. 
The petitioner asserts in part 3 of Forni I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion: 
We submit this appeal because the submitted credential[] evaluation demonstrates 
the beneficiary possesses the requisite education for the proffered pqsition. We 
believe the USCIS officer did not properly consider the evaluation. 
The petitioner also indicated on Form I-290B that "My brief and/or additional evidence will be 
submitted to [the] AAO within 30 days." The appeal was filed on April 26, 2012 .. As of this: date, 
approximately one year later, the AAO has received nothing further. 
A general statement .without substantive arguments is insufficient to raise that ground on appeal. 
The petitioner did not provide any additional evidence or offer any addition.al arguments identifying 
any errors of law or fact .in the director's analysis such that the AAO could find the appeal to be 
substantive. See Desravines v. United States Attorney Gen., No. 08-14861, 343 F. App'x 433, 435 
(11th Cir. 2009) (finding that issues not 
briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned). . 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(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's 
appellate submission offers only a general statement asserting that the officer "did not properly 
consider" a piece of evidence in the record. The petitioner offers no argument that demonstrates 
error on the part of the director based upon the recqrd that was before him. 
As the petitioner offers no substantive 
basis for the filing of the appeal, the regulations mandate 
the summary dismissal of the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.