dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Science

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
t'tJDLIC COP} 
FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: SEP 07 2010 
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: 
SELF -REPRESENTED 
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 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $585. 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, 
~~\\A--
7 PerryRhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
1-
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 to classify the beneficiary 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 to employ the beneficiary as a science professor. 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 has not established that an 
exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States. 
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 292.l(a) indicates that 
a party entitled to representation may be represented by an attorney, an accredited representative of 
certain organizations, or certain other persons under circumstances narrowly described in the regulation. 
The includes Form of of as Attorney or Representative, signed 
by ._oes not claim to be an 
attorney or an accredited representative of any recognized organization, nor does he show that he falls 
into any of the categories described in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 292.1(a). Instead, he states: "We are 
INS consultants and advisors. After a careful request and advisory to USCIS and Coustomer [sic] 
Services Officers we have decided to appear as Third Party or Advisors just for communication and 
inquiry on status only, not for Court process at all." Because the regulations contain no provision 
allowing "consultants and advisors" to represent the petitioner, we must consider the petitioner to be 
self-represented in this proceeding. 
The USCIS regulation at 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 oflaw or statement offact for the appeal." 
On the Form I-290B Notice of Appeal, filed on July 20, 2009, the petitioner indicated that a brief would 
be forthcoming within thirty days. To date, over a year later, careful review of the record reveals no 
subsequent submission; all other documentation in the record predates the issuance of the notice of 
decision. 
On the appeal form itself, the petitioner indicated that the beneficiary "is still considered a very valuable 
asset in our current and future objectives," but offered no arguments or evidence to address the stated 
grounds for denial. The petitioner's general statement is not sufficient basis for a substantive appeal. 
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 appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.