dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Cardiology

(b)(6)
DATE: 
INRE: 
PETITION: 
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 
AUG 2 5 2.01/pFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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 1-2908) 
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. 
Thank you, 
\rh {{tf!~:trative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before us at the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. We will 
summarily dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on 
August 15, 2012, seeking 
classification under 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. The petitioner seeks employment as a 
physician specializing in cardiology. The petitioner asserts that an exemption from the requirement of a 
job offer, and thus of a labor certification, is in the national interest of the United States. The director 
denied 
the petition on September 30, 2013, having found that the petitioner established that he qualifies 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but not that an exemption 
from the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States. 
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in 
pertinent part, "[a]n officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily 
dismiss any appeal when the 
party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the 
appeal." 
On the Form I-290B Notice of Appeal, the petitioner indicated that no brief or additional evidence 
would follow. Therefore, Form I-290B and the accompanying three-page statement constitute the entire 
appeal. 
Most of the appellate statement is drawn directly from the petitioner's previous response to the 
director's April27, 2013 request for evidence (RFE) and does not address the points raised in the denial 
notice. On appeal, and in his response to the RFE, the petitioner lists his conference presentations, 
identifies a book chapter he wrote, and states that "[ c ]itations to his work have appeared in multiple 
journals." As with his RFE response, the petitioner's appellate statement also identifies two journals 
for which he has acted as a peer reviewer and both includes the assertion that the petitioner "is very 
highly regarded for his clinical abilities." 
In the denial notice, the director addressed the petitioner's articles and their citation history, his 
conference presentations, and his clinical work. The appellate statement does not address or overcome 
the director's conclusions, instead repeating prior claims that the director already took into account. 
The director's decision did not specifically mention the petitioner's peer review work, but the appellate 
statement does not say why this work should qualify the petitioner for the benefit sought; it only says 
that such work occurred. 
The director's decision included a substantive discussion of the petitioner's evidence and an explanation 
as to why the evidence did not establish the petitioner's eligibility for the benefit sought. The statement 
submitted on appeal does not address, rebut, or overcome the director's specific findings. The general 
statement that the petitioner submitted "clear evidence" of eligibility, followed by repetition of claims 
that predate the denial, do not specifically identify an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact 
that would support his appeal. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
Because the petitioner has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement 
of fact as a basis for the appeal, we must summarily dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is 
dismissed.