dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Hematology And Oncology

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: 
SEP 2 7 20U 
OFFICE: TEXAS 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 
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)(1)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~/JWt1rJG 
J: Perry Rhew 
't .... Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas 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 member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The petitioner 
seeks employment as a physician specializing in hematology and oncology. 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 had 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. § 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, counsel checked a box reading "My brief and/or additional 
evidence is attached." Counsel did not indicate that any future supplement would follow. Therefore, 
the initial appellate submission constitutes the entire appeal. The petitioner submitted no exhibits on 
appeal except for a copy of the denial notice. Counsel stated that the appeal included a list of the 
petitioner's "original contributions" and "publications," but the appeal includes neither list. 
The Form I-290B includes a space for the petitioner to "[p]rovide a statement explaining any erroneous 
conclusion of law or fact in the decision being appealed." Counsel did not identify any erroneous 
conclusion oflaw or fact in the director's decision. Instead, counsel repeated several general claims that 
first appeared in correspondence prior to the denial. The director had already addressed these claims, 
and repeating them on appeal is not sufficient grounds for appeal. For example, counsel had previously 
stated that the petitioner had written textbook chapters. The director, in the denial notice, stated that the 
petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence of the chapters' publication. On appeal, counsel repeats 
the claim that the petitioner wrote the chapters, but offers no evidence or direct rebuttal to the director's 
finding. 
Also, the director, in the denial notice, stated: "The petitioner ... did not submit evidence that any of the 
beneficiary'S articles have been cited." On appeal, counsel clams that the petitioner's "research has 
been ... cited to by experts in the field," but the petitioner submits no evidence to support this claim. 
Counsel does not identify the articles containing the citations or the authors of those articles, or identify 
any previously submitted exhibits that would contradict the director's findings. 
Because counsel has failed to identify specifically an erroneous 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.