dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Research Science

identifyina data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privac) 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: 
AUG 0 3 2011 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Irrunigration 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. § 1 1 53(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, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
-Page 2 
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 
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 research scientist. 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. § 103.3(a)(1)(v) states, in pertinent part, "[a]n 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 1-290B Notice of Appeal, counsel checked a box reading "My brief and/or additional 
evidence is attached." Counsel did not indicate that a 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-290B includes a space for the petitioner to "[p]rovide a statement explaining any erroneous 
conclusion of law or fact in the decision being appealed." In a one-sentence statement, counsel states: 
"The record reflects . . . that a waiver of the labor certification process would be in the national 
interes t." 
In an accompanying statement, counsel acknowledges that the scientific 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 further 
asserts generally that the petitioner'S publication record, leading roles and judging experience 
distinguish him from his peers, but counsel does not allege any specific factual or legal errors in the 
director's decision. 
Because the petitioner 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. 
The AAO notes the approval of a more recent petition that an intending employer filed on the alien's 
behalf, on September 15, 2010. The petition included an approved labor certification. The director 
approved that petition on September 21,2010. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.