dismissed EB-2 Case: Unknown

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citiz enship and Immigr ation Services 
Administr ative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachus etts Ave., N.W. , MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: SEP 2 6 2013 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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/forms 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. 
Thank you,? 
J ,fi--,fd-
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition and the 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary pursuant to section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U .S.C. § 1153(b )(2) as a Member of the Professions Holding an 
Advanced Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability. The director determined that the petitioner 
failed to demonstrate a continuing ability to pay the proffered wage beginning on the priority date. 
On appeal, the petitioner asks that the petition be approved as the beneficiary's services are necessary 
and needed by the petitioner. The petitioner admits that it cannot pay the proffered wage of the 
beneficiary and relies on contributions from its owner to sustain itself, but believes that with the 
beneficiary's service the entity will in the future be profitable. The petitioner states, "[the] reason for 
denial, namely that the company cannot pay the salary determined by the [Department of Labor], in 
itself is correct." Therefore, the petitioner does not dispute the director 's fmding and stipulates that the 
director's decision is correct. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(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. In this 
instance, the petitioner has not, on appeal, identified specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or 
statement of fact for the appeal 
Counsel here has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial, except to agree that 
petitioner cannot pay the proffered wage without outside assistance, and has not provided any 
additional evidence in that regard. The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.