dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medicine

identltymg data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarr~ted 
invasion of personal pnvacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: AUG 0 8 2012 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Oflice (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. § l153(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 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 I-290B, 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 file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I )(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
PerryRhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Oftice 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, Thc matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeaL The AAO will 
summarily dismiss the appeaL 
The petitioner, a physician, 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 asserts that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer 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, 
An 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 
8 C,F,R, § 103,3(a)(l)(v), On the Form I-290B Notice of Appeal, the petitioner checked a box reading 
"No supplemental brief and/or additional evidence will be submitted," Therefore, the initial appellate 
submission (comprising Form I-290B and a copy of the denial notice) constitutes the entire appeaL 
The petitioner states: "THE RECORD REFLECTS [THE PETITIONER] IS AN ADVANCED 
DEGREE PROFESSIONAL WITH EXCEPTIONAL ABILITY IN THE FIELD OF EXPERTISE, 
HER WORK IN THE FIELD OF MEDICINE HAS SUBSTANTIAL INTRINSIC MERIT, HER 
WORK IS NATIONAL IN SCOPE" (Capitalization in originaL) The director had not cited any of 
those factors as grounds for denial of the petition, 
The petitioner states that she "has been invited to write a chapter for thc American Society of 
Anesthesiology's Manual of Operating Room Design." The director acknowledged this work in the 
denial notice. Thus, the petitioner simply repeats a claim that the director already took into account. 
Finally, the petitioner states: "She has been selected to present her research in very prominent 
conferences and annual meetings (including posters)." The petitioner then identities six hospitals and 
other health care facilities where those meetings took place. The petitioner, however, does not explain 
why this information should have led to the approval of the petition. A list of hospitals does not 
demonstrate an error of fact or law in the director's decision. The director, in the denial notice, had 
acknowledged the petitioner's participation in research, and concluded "the petitioner's articles have not 
been published nor cited." A list of hospitals does not rebut this conclusion. 
The petitioner's statement on appeal contains no specific allegation of error. The bare assertion that the 
director should have approved the petition, coupled with a list of the petitioner's professional activities, 
is not a sufficient basis for a substantive appeal. 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.