dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Nephrology

identifying data deleted to 
preve,nt clearly unwarranted 
InvaSIon of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
SfP 2 7 2011 
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. § I 1 53(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)(1 )(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
JADudnd0 
J:'Perry Rhew 
-\LChief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.us~is.go .. 
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 of law or statement of fact 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. 
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: 
"The record reflects through [the petitioner's] leading roles at prominent medical institutions along with 
his history of significant contributions to the field of nephrology that the petitioner has demonstrated 
that a waiver of the labor certification process would be in the national interest." Counsel did 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 an accompanying statement, counsel acknowledges that the medical societies to which the petitioner 
belongs do not require outstanding achievements, 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 further 
asserts generally that the petitioner "has judged the work of even senior peers" and "has been 
indispensable" to the university department where he works. Counsel does not, however, allege any 
specific factual or legal errors or other deficiencies in the director's decision. Counsel merely asserts 
that, given the petitioner's (unspecified) achievements, the director should have approved the petition. 
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.