dismissed EB-2 Case: Unknown

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 - 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: m Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: DEC 0 8 2009 
LIN 06 214 50010 
IN RE: 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. 3 1 153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Off~ce in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. lj 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. 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 $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. tj 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
. .. - 
Page 2 of 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was 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 (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 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 that the beneficiary possessed the requisite education for the position 
beginning on the priority date. 
On appeal, counsel merely stated that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration services (USCIS) 
incorrectly denied the petition. 
Counsel submitted the appeal on July 10,2007. As of this date, approximately two and a half years 
later, the AAO has received nothing further. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. fj 103.3(a)(l)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the party 
concerned fails to identifL specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the 
appeal. 
Counsel here has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided any 
additional evidence. The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.