dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medicine

identifying data deleted to 
prevent cJe",,',), iHWarrantec) 
invasion of personal privac~ 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: JAN 1 0 lOll 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland S('curity 
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 I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
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 hnmigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. § l1S3(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
petitioner seeks employment as a physician at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Bronx, New 
York. 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 ofthe United States. 
The AAO notes that the record contains a Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or 
Accredited Representative, naming as the petitioner's attorney of record. There is no 
evidence, however, that counsel preparation or filing of the appeal. 
The U.S. Citizenship and hnmigration Services (USerS) regulation at 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, filed on January 7, 2011, the petitioner indicated that a brief 
would be forthcoming within thirty days. To date, a year later, careful review of the record reveals no 
subsequent submission; all other documentation in the record predates the issuance of the notice of 
decision. The Form I-290B, therefore, constitutes the entire appeal. 
On the appeal form, the petitioner states: 
no mention was made in the Decision Letter of the evidence for the impact of my past 
research work on medical practice throughout the nation, for which evidence was 
provided through letters from peers and experts in the field, as well as indirect evidence 
demonstrating the citation of my work by other scientific publications. In addition, no 
mention was made of the evidence submitted, showing the impact of my clinical work 
beyond the community which I serve. 
The record of proceeding contains thousands of pages of documents; therefore, the petitioner's 
reference to "evidence ... showing the impact of [his] clinical work" is too vague to establish which 
evidence the petitioner believes that the director overlooked. 
Contrary to the petitioner's claim, the director discussed the "letters from peers and experts in the field." 
Quotations from nine of these letters take up two pages of the five-page decision. The director 
acknowledged that the petitioner submitted evidence of participation in medical research, but found that 
Page 3 
the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the petitioner's work has influenced "current medical 
procedures performed in the field." The petitioner does not directly rebut this conclusion, instead 
offering only the general assertion that the director did not give sufficient consideration to the 
petitioner's unspecified "impact." 
Because the petitioner 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. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.