dismissed EB-2 Case: Unknown

, , 
fUBUCCOPY 
DATE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
FEB 1 5 2012 
INRE: 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 law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 c.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
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 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), as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an alien of exceptional ability. The director determined that the petitioner failed to 
establish its continuing ability to pay the proffered wage of $28.43 per hour ($59,134.40 
annually) from the priority date of January 19,2007. 
On appeal, counsel merely asserts that the petitioner does have the ability to pay the proffered wage. 
The appeal was received on April 9, 2008. As of this date, more than three years later, the AAO 
has received no new evidence or brief, and the regulation requires that any brief shall be submitted 
directly to the AAO. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.3(a)(2)(vii) and (viii). 
As stated in 8 c.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(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. 
A review of the director's decision reveals that the director accurately set forth a legitimate basis 
for the denial of the petition. Counsel's statements on appeal fail to overcome the basis for the 
denial. Accordingly, the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.