dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Oncology And Hematology

(b)(6)
DATE: MAR 0 4 2013 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
p:$.~ l)iji~rfuie~t 9f: --~~~B.~il[~~~ 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citize.nship 
and Imnngration 
:Services · 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Aijen of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203{b )(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153{b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF 
PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in you~ 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 I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~Ron Rosen be . 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
(b)(6)Pagez 
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 
summa,rily dismiss the appeal. · 
The petitioner seeks classification under section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2), as · a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. · The 
petitioner seeks 
employment as a physician specializing in oncology and hematology. 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 has not established that 
an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States. 
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.'' 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
On the Form I-290B Notice of Appeal, the petitioner checked a box reading ''No supplemental brief 
and/or additional evidence will be submitted." Therefore, the initial appellate submission constitutes 
the entire appeal. The petitioner submits no exhibits on appeal 
except for a copy of the denial notice. 
The four-paragraph statement on the appeal form consists entirely of language copied directly from an 
earlier letter from' counsel, submitted in response to a May 19, 2012 request for evidence . . The copied 
language even includes the same capitalization and grammatical error in the phrase "a ONCOLOGY/ 
HEMATOLOGY SPECIALIST." The phrase "she is constantly teaching ... " begins a sentence on the 
appeal form, but it lacks capitalization because' it originally appeared in the middle of a sentence in the 
earlier statement. 
The director already addressed the petitioner's response to the request for evidence, and found it 
insufficient to establish eligibility. for the benefit sought. Resubmission of the same statement on appeal 
adds nothing of substance to the record. Because all of the appellate language existed prior to the denial 
notice, it identifies no specific error of fact or law in the denial notice. The repeated assertion that the 
director should have approved the petition is not a 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 AAO must summarily dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.