dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Hematology/Oncology

• t 
.... identifying data deleted to 
l~jtevent cle:::~~:iy ul1"vvarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBUCCOpy 
DATE: MAR 0 6 2012 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Benefic iary: 
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. § I I 53(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.P.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.P.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, 
;;?perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
J 
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 pursuant to 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 
petitioner seeks employment as a physician specializing in hematology/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 has not established that 
an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States. 
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. 
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 states: 
The record reflects through [the petitioner's] leading roles at prominent medical 
institutes along with his history of original and pioneering publications and significant 
contributions to the field of hematology and oncology that [the petitioner] has 
demonstrated that (1) his work has had substantial intrinsic merit; (2) the impact of his 
work has spread beyond his hospital community and had a significant national influence 
in improving healthcare; and (3) [the petitioner's] abilities are extraordinary and stand 
above his peers, such that a waiver of the labor certification process would be in the 
national interest. 
Counsel does not elaborate as to the nature of the claimed "leading roles" and "significant 
contributions." The director, in the denial notice, had questioned earlier, similar claims by counsel. 
Counsel cannot rebut the director's findings simply by repeating the vague assertion that the petitioner's 
work has been important. 
In a separate statement accompanying the appeal form, counsel asserts "clear evidence was submitted 
showing that in particular [the petitioner] has made great contributions to the field through both is 
research work as well as clinical abilities, both well attested to by both his peers with whom he has 
worked as well as independent testimonials." The director considered the witness statements in the 
denial notice, but did not find them sufficient to establish eligibility. Counsel does not address the 
director's concerns, instead simply commenting on the letters' presence in the record. 
Counsel states that the petitioner "performs unique life-saving expert clinical procedures ... which are 
not performed [by 1 most other Hematologists and Oncologists. He has developed novel clinical 
I 
Page 3 
management guidelines. . . . Also, he is currently the lead on many clinical research trials." The 
director, in the denial notice, acknowledged these factors but found that the petitioner had not credibly 
demonstrated that his achievements set him apart from others in his specialty. Simply to repeat these 
claims on appeal does not rebut the director's findings. 
Counsel acknowledges that the medical societies to which the petItIOner belongs do not require 
outstanding achievements, but states that "this is the norm." The director, however, did not raise the 
issue of memberships as a basis for denial, and therefore this assertion is irrelevant. 
In sum, counsel does not explain how the director failed to take the petitioner's previous evidence into 
consideration. Counsel does not allege any specific factual or legal errors or other deficiencies in the 
director's decision. Counsel, in effect, merely asserts that the director should have approved the 
petition, which is not 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 AAO must summarily dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.