dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medicine

identify' .. In!! ""ta deleted t prevent Cj',_. '. 0 
• ..... ...... - ,<. 'nw Invasion of -.) ... , arramed 
personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: 
JAN 3 1 2012 
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 § I 153(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, 
~~~ 
~rryRhewU 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
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/researcher 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 has 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. § l03.3(a)(1)(v) states, in pertinent part, "[aln 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 indicated that a brief would follow within 30 days. To 
date, a year after the filing of the appeal, the record contains nothing identifiable as a subsequent 
submission. Therefore, the Form 1-290B itself constitutes the entire appeal. 
The Form 1-290B includes a space for the petitioner to "[pJrovide a statement explaining any erroneous 
conclusion of law or fact in the decision being appealed." Counsel did not identify any erroneous 
conclusion of law or fact in the director's decision. Instead, counsel repeated several claims that first 
appeared in correspondence prior to the denial. The director had already addressed these claims, and 
repeating or modifying them on appeal is not sufficient grounds for appeal. 
For example, counsel had previously stated that the petitioner's "combination of occupations" as a 
physician and researcher "means that labor certification ... would be prohibited." The director, in the 
denial notice, stated that the petitioner's claimed "combination of occupations" is not grounds for the 
waiver. On appeal, counsel repeats the assertion that the petitioner works in a "combination of 
occupations." Instead of that "labor certification ... would be prohibited," counsel contends 
that the petitioner's Center, would be "reluctant" to pursue labor 
certification because it "would likely trigger a lengthy audit and lengthy adjudication period." These 
purported misgivings are not grounds for appeal, because the labor certification process is a 
requirement, not simply an option for employers to exercise at their discretion. The claim that the 
petitioner's employer is concemed about a "lengthy adjudication" does not show that the director based 
the denial on any erroneous conclusion of law or fact. 
Counsel states: "the alien has a demonstrated record of achievement as both a clinician and researcher 
that is unique and has had a national impact." Counsel then briefly describes various exhibits submitted 
previously. This one-sentence claim is a conclusion without premises, and once again does not 
demonstrate an error of fact or law in the director's decision. 
Page 3 
Counsel did not address or rebut any of the specific findings in the director's decision. Counsel's vague 
and general assertion that the petitioner is eligible for the benefit sought is not a sufficient basis for an 
appea\. Counsel, in effect, simply claims that the petitioner is eligible for the benefit sought, and 
therefore the director ought to have approved the petition. 
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 appea\. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.