dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Pulmonary And Critical Care Medicine

" . 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
MAR 2 9 2012 
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. § 1153(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. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~~~ 7 Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, originally denied the employment-based 
immigrant visa petition for abandonment. The director subsequently reopened the proceeding on the 
petitioner's motion, and then denied the petition on the merits. 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. § 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
petitioner seeks employment as a physician specializing in pulmonary and critical care medicine. 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. 
On the Form I-29GB 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-29GB includes a space for the petitioner to "[p]rovide a statement explaining any erroneous 
conclusion of law or fact in the decision being appealed." On the appeal form itself, counsel repeated 
the statement from the previously filed motion to reopen, asserting that the director had failed to 
consider a timely response to a request for evidence. The director had subsequently granted that motion 
and issued a new decision on the merits. Counsel's comments about the petitioner's response to a 
request for evidence are not relevant to the decision now on appeal. 
In a separate 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 asserts generally that the petitioner "has made great contributions to his field ... well attested 
to by both his peers with whom he has worked as well as independent testimonials from prominent 
members of the field at prominent institutions." The director, in the denial notice, acknowledged the 
witnesses' letters and quoted from several of them, but found that "these letters are general in nature" 
and failed to distinguish the petitioner from other qualified professionals in his specialty. 
Counsel asserts that the petitioner's "record of publication is very impressive as is his record of 
presentation at major conferences. He has also sustained citations in prominent journals." The director 
had acknowledged the petitioner's published and cited work, but found that the petitioner had not 
"established the petitioner's work has made a significant impact within [his] field of study." 
Counsel maintains that the petitioner "has judged the work of even senior peers" and that "there are 
testimonials submitted showing that he has been indispensable" to the university department where he 
worked. Counsel does not, however, allege any specific factual or legal errors or other deficiencies in 
the director's decision. Counsel merely asserts that, given (unidentified) "substantial evidence" of the 
petitioner's (unspecified) achievements, the director should have approved the petition. The director, in 
the denial notice, had acknowledged the "testimonials" mentioned by counsel, but found them to be 
unsubstantiated. Counsel does not respond to this finding. 
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.