dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Nephrology

11.S. Departmcrrt of Honreland Seeuritj 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Of$ce of Administrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
SRC 08 037 50920 
IN RE: 
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. 5 1 1 53(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. tj 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. 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 $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
JgxJ6hlrc 
Perry Rhew 
'(I) chiif, Administrative Appeals Office 
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. $ 1153(b)(2), as an alien of exceptional ability or a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. 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. On 
December 8,2008, 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. 
The petitioner, through counsel, submits a timely appeal and provides the following reason as his 
reason for the appeal: 
We respectfully submit that the record indicates that mqualifies as 
an advanced degree professional whose work is in the national interest based upon 
past contributions to the field which far exceed that of the vast majority of 
qualified nephrologists nationwide. 
Counsel did not elaborate on his argument, cite to specific errors on the part of the director or 
describe any evidence the director allegedly failed to analyze. Moreover, counsel failed to provide 
any new evidence on appeal. In fact, counsel, in his appeal letter, "respectfully again point(s) to the 
evidence initially submitted with the original filing as well as with the response to the request for 
evidence" in an attempt to overturn the denial. Accordingly, the record is considered to be complete 
as it now stands. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part: 
An 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. 
Counsel's general statements regarding the petitioner's eligibility are not sufficient to meet the 
requirements for filing a substantive appeal. Therefore, as the petitioner has failed to specifically 
identify an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in this proceeding, the appeal must be 
summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.