dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Nursing

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W.. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: EAC 02 243 5 1597 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: huG 2 2 2005 
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. 3 1 153(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. 
wbert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 02 243 5 1597 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(2), as an alien of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. The petitioner seeks 
employment as a registered nurse. 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 has not established that he qualifies for classification as an alien of exceptional ability, or that an 
exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States. 
8 C.F.R. fj 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part, "[aln 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, filed on September 27, 2004, counsel indicated that a brief would be 
forthcoming within thirty days. To date, over ten months later, carehl review of the record reveals no subsequent 
submission; all other documentation in the record predates the issuance of the notice of decision. On August 9, 
2005, the AAO allowed the petitioner five business days to re-submit a copy of any timely submitted brief. The 
AAO's notice indicated that failure to respond within five business days could result in summary dismissal of the 
appeal. The time allowed has expired, and the AAO has received no response to this notice. 
The statement on the appeal form reads simply: "We respectfully submit that as a Registered Nurse with 
specialized studies [the petitioner] qualifies for the visa he was denied." This is a general statement that makes no 
specific allegation of error. The bare assertion that the director should have approved the petition is not sufficient 
basis for a substantive appeal. 
Inasmuch as counsel has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact as a 
basis for the appeal, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.