dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Dog Training

• identifying data deleted to \ 
prevent clearly unw~ted u 
invasion of personal pnvact} 
pUBLIC copy 
DATE: OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
MAY 03 2011 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. Ci tizenshi p 
and Immigration 
Services 
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 in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 c.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l )(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~~~ 
l
perrYRhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will 
summarily dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner seeks classification under section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.s.C. § 1153(b)(2), as an alien of exceptional ability in the arts, sciences or business. The 
petitioner seeks employment as a dog trainer. 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 found that the petitioner does not qualify for classification as an alien of 
exceptional ability in the arts, sciences or business, and 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. 
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(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, filed on March 29,2010, counsel indicated that a brief would be 
forthcoming within thirty days. To date, over a year later, careful review of the record reveals no 
subsequent submission; all other documentation in the record predates the issuance of the notice of 
decision. Therefore, counsel's statement on Form I-290B constitutes the entire appeal. 
On the Form I-290B, counsel stated that the petitioner qualifies for the national interest waiver because 
"the petition contains clear evidence of [the petitioner's] exceptional ability in the field of dog training." 
Counsel repeatedly states that the petitioner has established exceptional ability, but counsel offers no 
arguments to support this conclusion. Similarly, counsel states the conclusion, with no supporting 
argument, that the beneficiary's ability to train dogs for security personnel qualifies him for the national 
interest waiver of the job offer requirement. 
Conclusory statements with no supporting arguments do not provide a sufficient basis for a substantive 
appeal. Because counsel 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.