dismissed EB-2 Case: Unknown

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrat~ve Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: EAC0680008696 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: DEC 0 8 2009 
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. $ 1 153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office 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. 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. $ 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
3 - 
EAC0680008696 
Page 2 of 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Vermont Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. 
The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks to classify himself 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 he possessed the requisite experience for the position beginning on the 
priority date. 
On appeal, the petitioner merely stated that he had the requisite experience for the position. 
The petitioner submitted the appeal on July 23,2007. As of this date, approximately two and a half 
years later, the AAO has received nothing further. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the party 
concerned fails to identi@ 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 appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.