dismissed EB-2 Case: Unknown

identifY'lng data deleted to 
prevent clearly fmw~manted 
mvasion of personal privacy 
fiUBlJC COpy 
DATt4AV 1 52.012. Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave .• N.W. MS 2090 
Washington, 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) 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 with the field office or service center that originally decided your case by filing 
a Form 1-290B, 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. § \03.5. Do not file any motion directly with the 
AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § \03.5(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, 
(Q) 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 of 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petitIOn wa~ denied by the 
Director, Nebraska Service Center, and 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, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). The director determined that the 
petitioner failed to demonstrate that the offered position requires an alien of exceptional 
ability in the sciences, arts, or business. 
On appeal, counsel states the following: I 
I. The Service must distinguish and reconcile the regulation in light of Kazarian 
II. Based on the Kazarian requirements and the preponderance of the evidence 
standard the beneficiary meets the exceptional ability classification 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) provide that 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. 
Counsel has expressed disagreement with the director's determination but has not 
specifically identified an error of law or fact. Therefore, the appeal shall be summarily 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
I On appeal, counsel dated the appeal October 24, 2011 and stated that a brief and/or 
additional evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. The regulations at 
8 C.F.R. §§ 103.3(a)(2)(vii) and (viii) require that any brief be submitted directly to the 
AAO. To date, more than six months later, the AAO has received nothing further.