dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medicine

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: JUN ., 8 2011 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. § 1153(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. § 1 03.5(a)(l )(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
)r Perry 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. § 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
petitioner seeks employment as a physician specializing in allergy and immunology. 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. § 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 that statement, counsel erroneously refers 
to "the extraordinary ability petition." The petitioner did not seek classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability under section 203 (b)( 1 )(A) of the Act. 
Counsel claims that "the evidence initially submitted ... show[ed] that [the petitioner's] clinical work is 
extraordinary" and that the petitioner "has performed research that has had a national impact." These 
are summary conclusions unsupported by argument. The petitioner cannot simply request a re­
examination of unspecified prior evidence and leave it at that. The petitioner must identify flaws in the 
director's decision, which has not happened in this instance. 
Finally, counsel asserts The director, in denying the petition, did not dispute the national scope of 
published medical research. Therefore, counsel here disputes a point that the director never made. 
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.