dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Computer Security

PlUSLllC COPY 
identiqing data deleted to 
pvent clearly un-eQ 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of tIonieland Security 
20 Mass Ave , N W , Rm 3000 
Waslilngton, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
WAC 05 056 53307 
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. 9 1153(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. 
w 
obert P. Wiemann, Chief 
dministrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the employrnent-based immigrant visa petition. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
The beneficiary seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The Form 1-140 
petition identifies the beneficiary as the "Founder/Chief Technical Officer" of a "new corporation . . . based 
on advanced computer security algorithm, data communication, IPsec, VPN and Info. Sc. in general." It is 
not clear whether the petitioner had already founded the unnamed corporation, or simply intended to do so. 
Part 1 of the Form 1-140 petition, filed December 16, 2004, identifies 
 the beneficiary's 
"business partner," as the petitioner. In correspondence to the director dated March 16, 2005, the beneficiary 
stated: "I am interested in being the self petitioner for this petition." The beneficiary cited no authority that would 
permit the beneficiary of a visa petition to substitute himself as the petitioner in this manner after the petition has 
been filed. 
Nevertheless, review of the petition form indicates that the alien beneficiary is properly considered to be the 
petitioner. An applicant or petitioner must sign his or her application or petition. 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(a)(2). In this 
instance, Part 8 of the Form 1-140, "Signature," has been signed not by but by the alien 
beneficiary himself. Thus, the alien, and not I, has taken responsibility for the content of the 
petition. In this proceeding, the director correctly considered the beneficiary to be the petitioner, not because of 
the beneficiary's March 2005 correspondence, but because the beneficiary signed the Form 1-140 petition. 
The petitioner asserts that an exemption fi-om the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, is in 
the national interest of the United States. The director found that the petitioner qualifies for classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that the petitioner has not established that an 
exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States. 
8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part, "[aln 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, filed on October 12, 2006, the petitioner did not indicate that he would 
submit a brief or evidence in the future; he indicated, instead, that his evidence accompanied the Form I-290B 
itself. Therefore, the submission accompanying the Form I-290B constitutes the entirety of the appeal. 
Asked to "state the reason(s) for this appeal," the petitioner simply stated: "Please refer to the separate letter 
attached to this form." The "separate letter" does not contain any mention of the immigrant petition or its merits. 
Instead, the petitioner stated that he "has filed for judicial review at US Court in Los Angeles." Accompanying 
documentation indicates that the petitioner had filed a motion relating to litigation which the petitioner had 
previously initiated against a private entity; the litigation in question is not directly related to the petition at hand. 
petitioner self-published in 2006. The petitioner had already submitted another copy of the same book earlier in 
the proceeding. The re-submission of evidence already in the record adds nothing of substance to the proceeding, 
and the existence of the book is not a self-evident statement of grounds for appeal. Because the book existed 
prior to the denial of the petition, nothing in that book could reasonably be construed as a response or rebuttal to 
the grounds for denial. 
Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact 
as a basis for the appeal, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
The AAO notes that the present Fonn 1-140 immigrant petition is one of eleven that the petitioner has filed on 
his own behalf. The receipt numbers of the other petitions are: SRC 91 252 00021; LIN 95 099 50156; 
SRC 96 085 50306; SRC 97 083 50229; WAC 99 047 51912; WAC 01 282 57256; WAC 03 265 54872; 
WAC 04 007 50 186; LIN 06 2 18 525 15; and LIN 06 249 52 1 13. The approval of the earliest petition was 
automatically revoked, and all of the remaining petitions were denied. The petitioner appealed five of the ten 
denials; four of those appeals were dismissed prior to the adjudication of the present appeal. The petitioner 
filed most of these petitions after he was ordered removed from the United States on October 23, 1995. That 
removal order still stands, following the petitioner's unsuccessful challenges between 1995 and 2002. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.