dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Scientific Research

(b)(6)
Ci''· . ' 
DATE: 
INRE: 
PETITION: 
MAR 1 8 2013 
Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
I) 
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 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
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 
andNationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please fmd 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 AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision,· or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a 111otion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
. accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.useis.gov 
(b)(6)
.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 senior . scientist for 
The petitioner asserts that an exemption from the requirement of a 
·job offer, and thus of a labor certification, is in the national interest ofthe 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 had 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)(l)(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 of fact for the appeal." . 
On the Form I-290B 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 petitioner filed the Form 1-140 petition on March 2, 2012. On July 27, 2012, the director issued a 
request for evidence (RFE), instructing the petitioner to submit additional evidence to establish the 
petitioner's eligibility for the benefit sought. The petitioner responded to the RFE, and the director, in 
·the November 19, 2012 denial notice, discussed elements ofthe RFE response and explained why.the 
submissions were not sufficient to establish eligibility. 
Counse~ on appeal, quotes from the regulations and from the director's decision, and then states: "In 
our response to the RFE, we submitted detailed evidence to establish that the petitioner's research has 
influenced the field under the following criteria, and that other individuals and groups rely upon, and 
benefit from the petitioner's work." The rest of counsel's six-page appellate statement repeats 
counsel's earlier statement in response to the RFE. (That statement was largely a list of submitted 
exh~its, with quotations from witness letters.) 
The director, in the denial notice, had already taken the petitioner's response to the RFE into account. 
Counsel cannot rebut the director's findings simply by repeating the RFE response language, prefaced 
with the vague, blanket statement that the director did not give sufficient consideration to the RFE 
response. The repetition or recapitulation of previous assertions is not a sufficient basis for a 
substantive appeal. The AAO will summarily dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.