dismissed EB-2 NIW

dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medicine

๐Ÿ“… Date unknown ๐Ÿ‘ค Individual ๐Ÿ“‚ Medicine

Decision Summary

The appeal was summarily dismissed on procedural grounds. The petitioner's counsel failed to specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact from the director's initial denial, instead offering only a vague, general assertion that the petitioner was eligible, which is insufficient to form a basis for an appeal.

Criteria Discussed

National Interest Waiver Failure To Identify Error Of Law Or Fact

Sign up free to download the original PDF

View Full Decision Text
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
SEP 2 7 2011 
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 
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 1-2908, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. ยง I 03.5(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, 
)JDlJJinaG f Perry Rhew 
1b 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. ยง 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
petitioner seeks employment as a physician specializing in neonatal and perinatal medicine. 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.P.R. ยง 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 Form I-290B itself 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: 
"We respectfully submit that the record shows that the applicant has met the requirements of a 
physician of exceptional ability whose work is in the national interest." Counsel did not address or 
rebut any of the specific findings in the director's decision. Counsel's vague and general assertion that 
the petitioner is eligible for the benefit sought is not a sufficient basis for an 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. 
Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

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.