dismissed EB-2 Case: Unspecified

DATE:OCT 2 5 20W!flice: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Scrvice~ 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetls 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 in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matler have been returned to the office that originally decidell your case. Please 
he allvised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must he made to that office. 
If you helieve 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 mOlion to reopen 
in accordance with the instructions on Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of Sti30. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can he found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please he aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires any motion to he filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief. Administrative Appeals Office 
www.usds.gov 
Page 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, 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 
respond to a Request for Evidence (RFE) and, therefore, it could not be determined whether the 
beneficiary met the work experience requirements stated on the labor certification. 
On appeal, the petitioner stated that a brief and evidence would be submitted within 30 days of the 
Notice of Appeal, which was received by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services on 
September 30, 2011. Although the petitioner stated that he did not receive the RFE, the record of 
proceeding shows that an RFE dated April 21, 20 II, was addressed to the petitioner at his last 
known address (the same address used in the director's decision dated August 30. 2(11). 
The petitioner dated the appeal September 27, 2011. As of today, over one later, the AAO has 
received nothing further, 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. § l03.3(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. The petitioner failed to make any argument or submit any new 
evidence on appeal. Accordingly, the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.