dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medicine

(b)(6)
DATE: OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
FEB 2 6 10\3 
IN RE: 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 m·ust be made to that office. 
l 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form 1-2908, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not tile any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
)) OUdr1dv. 
C 
Ron Rosenberg . 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov\ 
(b)(6)
,\ 
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 emolovment as a 
sumeon. At the time.he filed the petition, the petitioner was a resident 
at the in N~w York. He subsequently undertook a fellowship at 
in Detroit, Michigan. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) records show 
that he now works for , Des Moines, Iowa. The petitioner's Form I-290B, N,otice of 
Appeal shows a Des Moines address. 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 requir~ment of a job offer . 
would be in the national interest of the United States. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) ~tates, 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 oflaw 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. 
Although framed as a rebuttal to the denial notice, almost all of the language in counsel's three-page 
appellate statement comes directly from counsel's earlier response to a February 12,.2012 request' for 
evidence (RFE). For example, the first paragraph .on page 5 of the RFE response began with this 
passage: 
We respectfully disagree with the assertion that (the petitioner's] voluminous 
publication history does not support the claim that he has established the ability to serve 
the national interest to a substantially greater extent than others in the field with the 
same minimal qualifications. We assert that no publications is the norm for Surgeons 
and [the petitioner's] publication tate is voluminous by ruw standard incomparison to 
Surgeons. 
(Emphasis in original.) In the second page of the appellate statement, counsel prefaces exactly the same 
language·, with the same emphasis and · the same arbitrary capitalization of "Surgeon," with a brief 
reference to the denial notice: · 
· In the denial notification, US CIS notes regarding specific evidence "While publications 
are useful, this is not unusual or different form [sic] other researchers who have had 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
their .work published. " We again respectfully disagree with the assertion that [the 
petitioner's] ·voluminous publication history does not support the claim that he has 
established the ability to serve the national interest to a substantially greater extent than 
others in the field with the same minimal qualifications. We assert that no publications 
is the norm for Surgeons and [the petitioner's] publication rate is voluminous by any 
standard in comparison to Surgeons. 
(Counsel's emphasis.) The director, in the denial notice, had already taken the petitioner's response to 
the RFE into account.· Counsel's repetition of the RFE response language does not rebut the director's 
findings or add anything of substance to the record. Significantly, counsel had previously placed great 
weight on the petitioner's research work (as opposed to his cliniGal practice as a surgeon). The director 
discussed publication in reference to the petitioner as a researcher, not as a surgeon. Counsel's 
observation that most surgeons are not researchers did not address the director's concerns as stated in 
the RFE, ~d the same observation, repeated on appeal, does not expose a. flaw in the denial notice. 
Similarly, counsel, on appeal, contends that the director did not give sufficient consideration to the 
petitioner's participation . in peer review .or the citation of his published work, but the director addressed 
both of these factors in the denial notice. 
The petitioner must articulate where the director erred in his decision. The repetition or recapitulation 
of previous assertions is not. a s~fficient basis for a substantive appeal. On appeal, counsel merely 
repeats prior assertions but does allege 
that the director failed to take those assertions into account 
previously; nor does the record support such an interpretation of the director's actions. As counsel does 
not allege any specific factual or legal errors on the part onhe director and does not explain how the 
director failed to take the petitioner's previous evidence into consideration, the AAO will summarily 
dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismi~sed.