dismissed
EB-2 NIW
dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medicine
Decision Summary
The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner's counsel failed to specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the director's decision. The director had denied the petition because the petitioner's medical practice was of local scope, her publications were few, and she had not demonstrated contributions beyond those expected of a U.S. worker with similar qualifications.
Criteria Discussed
National Interest Local Scope Of Work Publications Impact On The Field Contributions Beyond The Norm
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
'identifying data deleted to
prevent clearly unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy
PUBLIC COpy
DATE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER
MAY 0 {) 20"
IN RE: 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
FILE:
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. ยง 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. ยง 103.5. All motions must be
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. ยง 103 .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,
~\s4'-~~~
ยฃ, Perry Rhew
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
Page 2
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be
dismissed.
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(the Act), 8 U.S.c. ยง 1153(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 offer, and thus of an alien employment certification, is in the national interest of
the United States.
The director, in a three and a half page detailed decision, 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. Specifically, the director noted that the petitioner's medical practice was limited
to her location, that her publications were few and that the reference letters did not articulate how the
petitioner had impacted her field. Thus, the director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated
contributions beyond those expected of a U.S. worker with similar qualifications.
On appeal, counsel submits a one-page letter. In her letter, counsel acknowledges that the medical
societies of which the petitioner is a member do not require outstanding achievements but notes that
"this is the norm." The director, however, did not raise the issue of the petitioner's memberships as a
basis for denial. Counsel further asserts generally that the petitioner's publication record, leading roles
and judging experience distinguish her from her peers but does not allege any specific factual or legal
errors in the director's decision. Counsel makes no response to the director's concern that the benefits
of the petitioner's work would be local.
As stated in 8 C.F.R. ยง 103.3(a)(1)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the party concerned
fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion oflaw or statement of fact for the appeal.
Counsel here has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided any
additional evidence. The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial
MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.
Avoid This in My Petition →No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.