dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medicine

II, 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: MAR 052012 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Benefic iary: 
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 I 53(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTR UCTIONS: 
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, 
rry Rhew 
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 Immigration 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 specializing in rheumatology. 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 requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States. 
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, counsel checked a box reading "No supplemental brief and/or 
additional evidence will be submitted." Therefore, the initial appellate submission constitutes the entire 
appeal. The petitioner submitted no exhibits on appeal except for a copy of the denial notice. 
The Form I-290B includes a space for the petitioner to "[p]rovide a statement explaining any erroneous 
conclusion of law or fact in the decision being appealed." In a one-sentence statement, counsel states: 
"[The petitioner] has demonstrated that she is an alien of exceptional ability whose work will 
substantially benefit the United States." In an accompanying letter, counsel states: 
The Service questions whether [the petitioner] meets a level of expertise necessary to 
qualify for this classification. We respectfully again point to the evidence initially 
submitted with the original filing, as well [as] the response to the request for evidence, 
showing that her work does demonstrate that [the petitioner] does qualify for this 
classification. 
Counsel, however, does not elaborate or explain how the director failed to take the petitioner's previous 
evidence into consideration. Counsel does not allege any specific factual or legal errors or other 
deficiencies in the director's decision. Counsel merely asserts that the director should have approved 
the petition, which is not a sufficient basis for a substantive appeal. 
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 appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.