dismissed
EB-2 NIW
dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Metallurgical Engineering
Decision Summary
The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner failed to identify any specific erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the director's decision. The petitioner's statement on appeal did not rebut the director's findings and was therefore not a sufficient basis for a substantive appeal.
Criteria Discussed
National Interest Waiver
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
identifyingdatadeletedto preventclearlyunwarranted invasionof personalprivacy PUBLICCOPY U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO) 20 MassachusettsAve.,N.W.,MS 2090 Washington,DC 20529-2090 U.S.Citizenship and Immigration Services DATE: AUG0 9 2012 OFFICE:TEXASSERVICECENTER IN RE: Petitioner: Beneficiary: PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor AlienWorkerasaMemberof theProfessionsHoldinganAdvanced DegreeoranAlienof ExceptionalAbility Pursuantto Section203(b)(2)of theImmigration andNationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(2) ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: SELF-REPRESENTED INSTRUCTIONS: Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase.All of thedocuments relatedtothismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat anyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice. If you believethe AAO inappropriatelyappliedthe law in reachingits decision,or you haveadditional information that you wish to have considered,you may file a motion to reconsideror a motion to reopen in accordancewith the instructionson FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion, with a fee of $630. The specificrequirementsfor filing sucha motioncanbe foundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.Do not file any motion directly with theAAO. Pleasebeawarethat8C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto befiledwithin 30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseekstoreconsiderorreopen. Thankyou, PerryRhew Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice www.uscis.gov Page2 DISCUSSION:The Director,TexasServiceCenter,deniedthe employment-basedimmigrantvisa petition.ThematterisnowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) onappeal.TheAAO will summarilydismisstheappeal. Thepetitionerseeksclassificationpursuantto section203(b)(2)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(2),asa memberof the professionsholdinganadvanceddegree.The petitionerseeksemploymentasa metallurgicalengineeringresearcher.Thepetitionerassertsthatan exemptionfromtherequirementof ajob offer,andthusof alaborcertification,isin thenationalinterest of theUnitedStates.Thedirectorfoundthatthepetitionerqualifiesfor classificationasa memberof theprofessionsholdinganadvanceddegree,butthatthepetitionerhasnotestablishedthatanexemption fromtherequirementof ajob offerwouldbein thenationalinterestof theUnitedStates. Beforethefiling of theappeal,attorneyUi JunSukrepresentedthepetitioner.Theattomeyprepareda responseto a requestfor evidence(RFE),includinga coverletteron the attomey'sletterhead.The attomeymailedtheRFEresponsefromtheattomey'sGlenview,Illinois address,ratherthanfromthe petitioner'sSaltLakeCity, Utahaddress.Subsequently,however,theattorneydidnot prepareor sign theFormI-290BNoticeof Appeal;thepetitioner'spersonalstatementonappealincludesnomentionof legalrepresentation;andthe petitionermailedthe appealfrom his own Utahaddress.FormI-290B advisesthat attorneys"must attacha Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearanceas Attomey or Representative"to the appeal,asrequiredby theU.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS) regulationat8 C.F.R.§292.4(a).Theappealdoesnotincludethisform. Therefore,therecordcontains no indicationthat Ui JunSuk is still the petitioner'sattomeyof record,andseveralindicationsto the contrary.TheAAO will thereforeconsiderthepetitionerto beself-representedonappeal. TheU.S. CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.3(a)(1)(v)states, in pertinentpart,"[a]nofficerto whomanappealistakenshallsummarilydismissanyappealwhenthe partyconcernedfailsto identifyspecificallyanyerroneousconclusionof lawor statementof factforthe appeal." On the Form I-290B Notice of Appeal, filed on March 13, 2012,the petitioner indicatedthat "[n]o supplementalbrief and/oradditionalevidencewill be submitted."Thus,thepetitioner'sstatementon theFormI-290B itself constitutestheentireappeal. Onappeal,thepetitionerstates: I havea visionthatI will devotemyselffor therevivalof this country.. . . I havebeen working in the field of manufacturingindustry, which is consideredas a 3D (dirty, dangerous,difficult) industryand,thus,is lessattractiveto youngresearcherslike me. However,I confidentlybelievethattherevivalof theUSA's manufacturingindustryis thekey to revivethe economyof this countryaswell asthewholeworld,whichwill leadtothespiritualrevivalof theUSA. Page3 Thepetitionermakesno specificallegationof errorof factor law in thedirector'sdecision,andoffers norebuttalto anyof thedirector'sspecificfindings.Thepetitioner'sdeclarationof willingnessto work in manufacturingisnotasufficientbasisfor asubstantiveappeal.Thedirector,inthedenialnotice,did not questionthe intrinsic merit of the petitioner'soccupation,and thereforea discussionof the occupationdoesnotaddressor rebutthestatedgroundsfordenial. Becausethepetitionerhasfailedto identifyspecificallyanerroneousconclusionof law or a statement of factasabasisfortheappeal,theAAO mustsummarilydismisstheappeal. ORDER: Theappealissummarilydismissed.
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.