dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medicine

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranteo 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
JUL 28 2011 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
V.S. Department of Homeland Securit} 
U.S. Citi;:enship and Immigration Service:.. 
Administrative Appeals Onicc (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave .. N.\'\.! .. 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) ofthe Immigration 
and Nationality Act. 8 U.s.C. § 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please tind 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 belicve 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 otfice that originally decided your case by tiling a Form 1-290B. 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. 
&
DeNin(;~ 
erry Rhew 
Chief. Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska 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. § 1 I 53(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
petitioner seeks employment as a physician. The petitioner asserts that an exemption from the 
requirement of a job otTer, 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 ajob otTer would be in the national interest of the United States. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part, "la]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 offact for the appeal." 
On the Form 1-2908 Notice of Appeal, counsel did not claim that any future brief or additional evidence 
would be forthcoming. Instead, counsel indicated that a brief filed with the Form 1-2908 constituted the 
cntirety of the appeal. 
In the appellate brief. counsel did not address the director's decision to identifY any errors oflaw or fact. 
Instead, counsel basically copied three pages of text from counsel's January 14, 2009 letter that 
accompanied the initial tiling of the petition. Counsel simply repeated previous claims, without 
explaining why the AAO should find those claims any more persuasive than the director did. Simply 
repeating previous claims, basically word for word, is not sufficient basis for a substantive appeal. 
The only new language in the appellate brief is an introductory paragraph in which counsel repeatedly 
states that the appeal concerns a petition for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability under 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. The petitioner had filed such a petition, and the director denied it but 
the receipt number on the instant Form 1-2908 and on counsel's brief itself is the receipt number for the 
petition seeking to classifY the petitioner as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree 
with a national interest waiver, under section 203(b)(2) of the Act. Even if the AAO were to assume 
that counsel meant to appeal the other denial decision, and simply put the wrong receipt number on the 
appeal and brief, the AAO would have summarily dismissed the appeal for the reasons stated above. 
Ina~much as counsel has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of 
fact as a basis for the appeal, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.