dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Nephrology

ide.lltri-ymg dak c1::Ueu to 
prevent de,,;':,! tlfl'Narranted 
invasion of personal pnvacy 
PUBLlCCOPY 
DATE: SEP 2 7 2012 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service~ 
Administrative /\ppeab Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetls Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
1·-.) 
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, R U.S.C § I153(h)(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 AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fcc of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 CF.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Plcase be aware that 8 CF.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
rjA 0 UJJJnrr 
~~~~: 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 nephrology. 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 oflaw or statement offact for the appeal." 
On the Form I-290B Notice of Appeal, counsel checked a box reading "My brief and/or additional 
evidence is attached." Counsel did not indicate that any future supplement would follow. Therefore, 
the initial appellate submission constitutes the entire appeal. The petitioner submitted no exhibits on 
appeal except for a copy of the denial notice. Counsel states: 
The record reflects through [the petitioner's] leading roles at prominent medical 
institutes along with his history of original and pioneering publications and significant 
contributions to the field of nephrology that [the petitioner] has demonstrated that (1) his 
work has had substantial intrinsic merit; (2) the impact of his work has spread beyond 
his hospital community and had a significant national influence in improving healthcare; 
and (3) [the petitioner's] abilities are extraordinary and stand above his peers, such that a 
waiver of the labor certification process would be in the national interest. 
Counsel does not elaborate as to the nature of the claimed "leading roles" and "significant 
contributions." The director, in the denial notice, had questioned earlier, similar claims by counsel. 
Counsel cannot rebut the director's findings simply by repeating the vague assertion that the petitioner's 
work has been important. 
In a separate statement accompanying the appeal form, counsel maintains that the petitioner "has judged 
the work of even senior peers" and that "there are testimonials submitted showing that he has been 
indispensable" to the university department where he worked. Counsel does not, however, allege any 
specific factual or legal errors or other deficiencies in the director's decision. Counsel merely asserts 
that, given (unidentified) "substantial evidence" of the petitioner's (unspecified) achievements, the 
director should have approved the petition. The director, in the denial notice, had acknowledged the 
·'testimonials" mentioned by counsel. but found them to be unsubstantiated. Counsel does not respond 
to this finding. 
Page 3 
Counsel asserts "clear evidence was submitted showing that in particular [the petitioner] has made great 
contributions to the field through both his research work as well as clinical abilities, both well attested 
to by both his peers with whom he has worked as well as independent testimonials." The director, in 
the denial notice, acknowledged the witnesses' letters and quoted from several of them, but found that 
the letters failed to distinguish the petitioner from other qualified professionals in his specialty. Counsel 
does not address the director's concerns, instead simply commenting on the letters' presence in the 
record. 
Counsel asserts that the petitioner's "record of publication is very impressive as is his record of 
presentation at major conferences. He has also sustained citations in prominentjoumals." The director 
had acknowledged the petitioner's published and cited work, but found that the petitioner had not 
established the significance of this work. Calling the petitioner's work "impressive" on appeal is not a 
rebuttal of the director's finding. 
Counsel asserts that the petitioner "is a member of the most prominent medical societies in the country." 
Counsel acknowledges that these medical societies do not require outstanding achievements as a 
condition of membership, but states that "this is the norm." The director, however, did not raise the 
issue of the petitioner's memberships as a basis for denial. Counsel does not explain how these 
memberships establish eligibility for the national interest waiver; the prestige of a society does not 
necessarily reflect on each individual member thereof. 
In sum, counsel does not 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, in effect, merely asserts that the director should have approved the 
petition, which is not a sufficient basis for a substantive appeal. 
The AAO notes that, on May 2, 2011, an employer applied for a labor certification on the petitioner's 
behalf. The Department of Labor approved the labor certification, and US CIS approved a subsequent 
immigrant petition based on that labor certification. Thus, the petitioner has obtained the very labor 
certification that counsel, earlier, had claimed was unobtainable. The same employer filed a 
nonimmigrant petition on the alien's behalf: and USCIS approved that petition. Therefore. the 
petitioner is authorized to work until October 6, 2014 for the employer that obtained the labor 
certification. 
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.