dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Cardiology

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationService
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
20 MassachuseusAve..N.w., Ms 2090
washington,DC 20529-2090
8 U.S.Citizenship
and ImmigrationPUBLICCOPY services
DATE: DEC 1 5 2011 OFFICE:TEXASSERVICECENTER FILE
SRC
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor AlienWorkerasaMemberof theProfessionsHoldinganAdvanced
DegreeoranAlienof ExceptionalAbility Pursuantto Section203(b)(2)of theImmigration
andNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ l 153(b)(2)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase. All of thedocuments
relatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadetothatoffice.
If you believethe law wasinappropriatelyappliedby us in reachingour decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile amotionto reconsideroramotionto reopen.The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha requestcan be foundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5. All motionsmustbe
submittedto theoffice thatoriginally decidedyourcaseby filing a FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,
with a fee of $630. Pleasebe awarethat 8 C.F.R. § lO3.5(a)(l)(i) requiresthat any motion must be filed
within30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
try Rhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The Director,TexasServiceCenter,deniedthe employment-basedimmigrantvisa
petition. Thematteris now beforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO) on appeal.TheAAO will
summarilydismisstheappeal.
Thepetitionerseeksclassificationpursuantto section203(b)(2)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct
(theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(2),asa memberof the professionsholdingan advanceddegree.The
petitionerseeksemploymentasa physicianspecializingin cardiology.Thepetitionerassertsthatan
exemptionfromtherequirementof ajob offer,andthusof alaborcertification,isin thenationalinterest
of theUnitedStates.Thedirectorfoundthatthepetitionerqualifiesfor classificationasa memberof
the professionsholding an advanceddegree.but that the petitionerhad not establishedthat an
exemptionfrom therequirementof ajob offer would bein thenationalinterestof the UnitedStates.
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v)states,in pertinentpart, "[aln officer to whom an appealis taken shall
summarilydismissany appealwhenthe partyconcernedfails to identify specificallyany erroneous
conclusionof lawor statementof factfor theappeal."
On the Form I-290BNoticeof Appeal,counselcheckeda box reading"My brief and/oradditional
evidenceis attached."Counseldid not indicatethatanyfuturesupplementwouldfollow. Therefore,
theinitial appellatesubmissionconstitutestheentireappeal Thepetitionersubmittedno exhibitson
appealexceptfor acopyof thedenialnotice.
TheFormI-290Bincludesa spacefor thepetitionerto "[p]rovideastatementexplaininganyerroneous
conclusionof law or factin thedecisionbeingappealed."In a one-sentencestatement,counselstates:
"Therecordreflectsthrough[thepetitioner's]leadingrolesatprominentmedicalinstitutionsalongwith
his historyof original publicationsandsignificantcontributionsto the field of cardiologythat [the
petitioner]hasdemonstratedthat a waiverof the laborcertificationprocesswouldbe in thenational
interest." Counseldoesnot elaborateasto thenatureof theclaimed"leadingroles"and"significant
contributions." The director, in the denial notice, had acknowledgedthat the petitioner is
"knowledgeablein cardiologyandcardiacresynchronizationtherapy,"but asserted:"It is not sufficient
for the petitioner to simply enumeratethe alien's qualifications." Enumerating them again on appeal
cannotovercomethatfinding.
In anaccompanyingstatement,counselstatesthatthepetitioner'sunspecified"greatcontributionsto the
field" distinguishthe petitionerfrom his peers. Counsel however,doesnot elaborateor explainhow
thedirectorfailedto takethepetitioner'spreviousevidenceintoconsideration.
Counselacknowledgesthat the medicalsocietiesto which the petitionerbelongsdo not require
outstandingachievements,but statesthat"this is thenorm." Thedirector,however.did not raisethe
issueof thepetitioner'smembershipsasabasisfor denial Counselassertsthatthepetitioner's"record
of publication is very impressive,"but this is a conclusionwith no supportingargument. Counsel
furtherassertsgenerallythatthepetitioner"hasjudgedthework of evenseniorpeers"and"hasbeen
indispensable"to the universitydepartmentwherehe works. Counseldoesnot, however,allegeany
Page3
specificfactualor legalerrorsor otherdeficienciesin thedirector'sdecision.Counselmerelyasserts
that,giventhepetitioner's(unspecified)achievements,thedirectorshouldhaveapprovedthepetition.
Becausecounselhasfailedto identifyspecificallyanerroneousconclusionof law or a statementof fact
asabasisfor theappeal,theAAO mustsummarilydismisstheappeal.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.