dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Polymer Chemistry

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Avc.. N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington. DC 20529 
PUBLIC COPY 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: EAC 03 182 5 1408 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 3 0 
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: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 03 182 51408 
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 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. $ 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The petitioner 
seeks employment in the field of polymer chemistry. 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. 
8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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 January 4, 2005, the petitioner indicated that a brief would be 
forthcoming within 120 days. The notice of appeal advises that extensions longer than 30 days will be "granted 
only for good cause shown" (emphasis in original). The petitioner explains that the extension is necessary "[dlue 
to end of semester, research and teaching obligations and an already planned Christmas and winter vacation." To 
date, six months later, careful review of the record reveals no subsequent submission; all other documentation in 
the record predates the issuance of the notice of decision. Six months after the petitioner requested a four-month 
extension, the record contains no substantive response to the stated grounds for denial. 
Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact 
as a basis for the appeal, the regulations mandate the summary dismissal of the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.