dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Education

(b)(6)
DATEOCT 0 7 2013 OFFICE: TESXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: 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. 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.P.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
#on Rosenber 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment -based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the 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 a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
etitioner seeks employment as an elementary school teacher a 
in Washington , D.C. 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 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. 
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, 
in pettinent part, "[a]n officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the 
patty concemed 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 April 12, 2013, counsel indicated that a brief would be 
forthcoming within thirty days. To date, over five months later, careful review of the record reveals no 
subsequent submission; all other documentation in the record predates the issuance of the notice of 
decision. 
On the appeal form, counsel states: "the Decision is based on erroneou s conclusion of law and 
enoneous conclusion and/or statement of fact." This is a general statement that makes no specific 
allegation of enor. The bare assertion that the director somehow erred in rendering the decision is not 
sufficient basis for a substantive appeal. 
Because counsel has failed to identify specifically an enoneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact 
as a basis for the appeal , the AAO must summarily dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.