dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Family Economics

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PUBLIC COPY 
LIN 07 027 53718 
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. 5 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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 fixther inquiry must be made to that office. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition. 
The director subsequently reopened the matter on the petitioner's motion, and affirmed the denial of the petition. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be sdly dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203@)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. $ 1 1 53(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. At the time he filed the 
petition, the petitioner had completed his doctoral studies at the University of Hawaii at Manoa (UHM), but 
had not yet received his degree. The petitioner indicated that he seeks to continue his current work as a 
research assistant at UHM's Center on the Family, in which capacity he would "[a]ssist in conducting 
household and family economic studies." The petitioner asserts that an exemption fiom 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 fiom the requirement of a job offer would be in the national 
interest of the United States. 
When the director first denied the petition on May 6, 2008, the substantive portion of the petitioner's motion to 
reconsider consisted of an eleven-page brief fiom counsel. In re-denying the petition on July 7,2008, the director 
reversed part of the original finding (concerning the national scope of the petitioner's work) but found that the 
record "simply does not support [counsel's] contention" that the petitioner's "exceptional level of expertise 
allows him to contribute to his field to a substantially greater degree than others in the field." 
The appeal fiom the second denial consists solely of a ten-page brief fiom counsel. The language in this brief has 
been taken directly from counsel's prior brief on motion. The director had already reviewed counsel's exact 
arguments on motion, and found them wanting. Counsel did not discuss the director's observations contained in 
the second denial notice. The resubmission of an abridged version of a previously submitted brief cannot be 
considered to be a substantive response, when the arguments in that brief have already been reviewed and refuted. 
The redundant brief neither answers the director's latest decision nor adds anythmg of substance to the record. 
8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part, "[aln officer to whom an appeal is taken shall sdly 
dismiss any appeal when the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or 
statement of fact for the appeal." 
Inasmuch as 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.