dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Research

htirjbg&b&kt#1 to 
prevent dearly unwarranted 
-~prsonslpriracy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 05 072 52832 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: AM 2 g 2006 
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 1 153(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. 
L&- 
s~obert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 05 072 52832 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
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 October 14, 2005, the petitioner indicated that he was "not 
submitting a separate brief or evidence." Therefore, the Form I-290B itself constitutes the entirety of the original 
appeal. 
The statement on the appeal form reads: "The USCIS misapplied the legal standards set for[th] in the NYSDOT 
case. I therefore appeal the decision. Please review this case and apply the NYSDOT criteria properly." 
NYSDOT is an acronym for a precedent decision, Matter of New York State Dept. of Transportation, 22 I&N 
Dec. 215 (Comrn. 1998). The petitioner does not, however, explain how the director's decision was at variance 
with that precedent decision. This is a general statement that makes no specific allegation of error. The bare 
assertion that the director somehow erred in rendering the decision is not sufficient basis for a substantive appeal. 
As noted above, the petitioner origdly indicated that he would not supplement the appeal. Nevertheless, six 
months later, the petitioner submitted a list of "changes since the application was appealed." Pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(2)(vii), the AAO is not required to accept untimely supplements to appeals. Rather, the 
petitioner must, in advance, demonstrate that good cause exists for an extension of time. In this instance, the 
petitioner did not show good cause, and the initial appeal contained no indication at all that the petitioner would 
need six months to supplement the appeal. The filing of an appeal does not secure for the petitioner an open- 
ended or indefinite period in which to supplement the record at will. 
The new submission is a list of recent activities by the petitioner, such as the publication of papers and 
participation in a joint working group. The petitioner acknowledges that these developments took place 
"since the application was appealed." Such subsequent developments cannot form the basis of a substantive 
appeal. A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed in an effort to make 
an apparently deficient petition conform to CIS requirements. See Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169 (Cornm. 
1998), and Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45 (Reg. Comm. 1971), which require that beneficiaries seeking 
employment-based immigrant classification must possess the necessary qualifications as of the filing date of the 
visa petition. If the petitioner believes that these developments qualify him for the benefit sought (and he does 
not explain why this is so), then the appropriate course of action would be to file a new petition. They cannot 
retroactively demonstrate that he was already eligible in January 2005, when he filed the petition. 
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.