dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Religion

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington. DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: ,- Office: CALlFORNlA SERVICE CENTER Date: 2 3 2005 
WAC 05 046 5 1442 
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. $ 11 53(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the ~dministiative 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 oflice. 
u 2 Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be rejected. 
The alien seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(2), as an alien of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. The alien seeks 
employment as an auditor at the Church of Scientology Celebrity Centre International. 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 alien is ineligible for the classification sought, 
because the beneficiary does not work in the sciences, arts, or business. The director also found 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. tj 103.3(a)(l)(iii) states that, for purposes of appeals, certifications, and reopening or reconsideration, 
aflectrdpurty (in addition to the Citizenship and Immigration Services) means the person or entity with legal 
standing in a proceeding. It does not include the beneficiary of a visa petition. 
8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(2)(v) states that an appeal filed by a person or entity not entitled to file it must be rejected as 
improperly filed. In such a case, any filing fee the Service has accepted will not be refunded. 
The alien beneficiary signed Part 8 of the Form 1-140 petition. Therefore. the alien beneficiary is the petitioner in 
this proceeding. A signature on Part 9 of the Form 1-140 indicates that of the Church of 
Scientology Celebrity Centre International prepared the petition form on the alien's behalf. Ms. - 
signature on Part 9 of the form does not make her, or her organization, the petitioner in this proceeding. The party 
who takes legal responsibility for the petition is the party who signs Part 8, not Part 9, of Form 1-140. 
The petitioner did not sign the Form I-290B Notice of Appeal. Rather, Ms. signed the appeal form. 
Thus, the appeal has not been filed by the petitioner, nor by any entity with legal standing in the proceeding, but 
rather by the petitioner's intending employer. Therefore, the appeal was not properly filed, and must be rejected. 
We note that, even if the appeal had not been rejected, it still would not qualify for consideration on the merits. 
8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part, "[a311 officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily 
dismiss any appeal when the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of taw or 
statement of fact for the appeal." On the Form I-290B Notice of Appeal, which the director received on May 3, 
2005, Ms. indicated that a brief would be forthcoming within thirty days. Since that time, the only 
new submissions from Ms. have been requests for further exte~~sions in 30-day increments, without 
providing good cause as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(vii). To date, careful review of the record reveals no 
subsequent submission of any substance. ~s.statement on the Form I-290B itself reads, in full: 
I. Religion is an art and therefore qualifies for national interest waiver. 
2. Petitioner demonstrated that beneficiary's work is in the national interest. This was 
overlooked by the Service Center. 
3. A religious worker is statutorily qualified to submit such a petition. The Director of the 
California Service Center did not properly consider her qualifications. 
Page 3 
The above assertions are not arguments. Rather, they are conclusions unsupported by premises. The claim that 
"religion is an art" is by no means self-evidently true, and therefore this contention, without any logical 
elaboration, cannot form a valid basis for an appeal. The remaining two assertions amount to little more that the 
claim that the alien qualifies for the classification and the waiver, and that therefore the director should have 
approved the petition. Again, without specific arguments to demonstrate exactly how the director erred, these 
general claims have no weight. Inasmuch as Ms. has failed to identify specifically an erroneous 
conclusion of law or a statement of fact as a basis for the appeal, the appeal would have to be summarily 
dismissed even if Ms. had standing to file an appeal in this proceeding (which she does not). 
We note that the church had previously filed another petition, with receipt number WAC 0 1 00 1 543 10, seeking 
classification to classify the alien as a special immigrant religious worker. The director approved that petition on 
May 17, 2005. The rejection of the present appeal is without prejudice to any further proceedings that may arise 
pursuant to the approval of the special immigrant religious worker petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.