dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Hematology-Oncology

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarr~nted 
invasion of personal pnvacy 
PUBLlCCOPY 
DATE: OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
OCT 28 2011 
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. § lI53(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, 
~~ 
tyerryRhew ~ 
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 pursuant to section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. § l1S3(b )(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree1 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 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. § I03.3(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 1-290B 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 1-290B includes a space for the petitioner to "[p ]rovide a statement explaining any erroneous 
conclusion of law or fact in the decision being appealed." In a one-sentence statement, counsel states: 
"The record reflects through [the petitioner's] leading roles at prominent medical institutions along with 
his history of original publications and significant contributions to the fields of hematology and 
oncology that [the petitioner] has demonstrated 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 acknowledged the petitioner's 
publication history, but found that "merely publishing some shared articles [does] not qualify the 
beneficiary for [the] National interest waiver." The director also found that the petitioner "may have the 
experience and education to function as a high level Hematologist-Oncologist," but that the petitioner 
had not established his "influence on the field." Counsel cannot rebut the director's findings simply by 
repeating the vague assertion that the petitioner's work has been important. 
In an accompanying statement, counsel states that the petitioner's "original contributions" and 
"distinctions" distinguish the petitioner from his peers. Counsel, however, does not elaborate or explain 
how the director failed to take the petitioner's previous evidence into consideration. 
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 
1 The AAO notes that the petitioner was previously a lawful pennanent resident of the United States, but later abandoned 
that status. The petitioner filed Form I-407, Abandonment of Lawful Permanent Resident Status, on September IS, 
2003. 
issue of the petitioner's memberships as a basis for denial. Counsel further asserts generally that the 
petitioner "has judged the work of even senior peers" and "has been indispensable" to the university 
department where he works. Counsel does not, however, allege any specific factual or legal errors or 
other deficiencies in the director's decision. Counsel merely asserts that, given the petitioner's 
(unspecified) achievements, the director should have approved the petition. 
Because counsel has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion oflaw or a statement of fact 
as a basis for the appeal, the AAO must summarily dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.