dismissed EB-2 Case: Unknown

(b)(6)
DATE: DEC 3 0 2014 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department ofHomeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service 
Administrative 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: 
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 l-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, 
&1/'1 Jfo�R.o�en�rg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center (the director) denied the immigrant visa 
petition and the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
appeal will be summ arily dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary pursuant to as an advanced degree professional 
pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(2). 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 stated that the director mentioned a May 13, 2014 request for evidence 
(RFE), which the petitioner claims it did not receive.' The petitioner requests 30 days in which to 
submit additional documents. 
The petitioner dated the appeal September 1, 2014. As of this date, more than 3 months later, we 
have received nothing further, and the regulation requires that any brief shall be submitted directly 
to us. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.3(a)(2)(vii) and (viii). 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v), an appeal shall be summ arily dismissed if the party 
concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the 
appeal. 
The petitioner here has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided 
any additional evidence. The petitioner has not even expressed disagreement with the director's 
decision. The appeal must therefore be summ arily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
1 The record reflects that the RFE was forwarded to the address on the Form 1-140 immigrant petition and that the 
petitioner has not moved, nor was the letter returned as undeliverable.