dismissed EB-2 Case: Unspecified

(b)(6)
DA1;J;,;R OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
~ 072014 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and lmmigrati6n 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: 
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 I-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. 
ThW·. k.· yo·?/l .. -~. . . ' ····, .... ~ .· . . '. wr· -.·:·A·,. ._ ' 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition and the 
matter 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. § 1153(b)(2), which provides for an immigrant classification to 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent and whose services are 
sought by an employer in the United States. The director determined that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary met the minimal education requirements on the approved labor 
certification as of the priority date. 
On appeal, counsel stated that the director erred in denying the petition and that the beneficiary 
possesses the education required for the position. Counsel indicated that a brief would be submitted 
within 30 days. 
Counsel dated the appeal August 20, 2013. As of this date, more than seven monthslater, 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.P.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(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. 
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.