dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Surgery

PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsoffice (AAO)
20 MassachuseusAve., N.W., MS2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
8 U.S.Citizenship
and ImmigratiOn
Services
DATE: OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICECENTER
APR032012
IN RE:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien Workerasa Memberof theProfessionsHoldinganAdvanced
Degreeor anAlienof ExceptionalAbility PursuanttoSection203(b)(2)of theImmigration
andNationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(2)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents
relatedto this matterhavebeenreturnedto the office that originally decidedyour case. Pleasebe advisedthat
any further inquiry that you might haveconcerningyour casemust be madeto 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 haveconsidered,you may file a motion to reconsideror 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
submittedto theoffice thatoriginally decidedyour caseby filing a Form1-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,
with a fee of $630. Pleasebe aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must be filed
within 30 daysof thedecision that the motion seeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
erry Rhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas ServiceCenter,deniedthe employment-basedimmigrant visa
petition.ThematterisnowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) onappeal.TheAAO will
summarilydismisstheappeal.
Thepetitionerseeksclassificationpursuantto section203(b)(2)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct
(theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ ll53(b)(2), asa memberof the professionsholdingan advanceddegree.The
petitioner seeks employment as a surgeon. The petitioner assertsthat an exemption from the
requirementof a job offer, andthusof a laborcertification,is in the nationalinterestof the United
States.Thedirectorfoundthatthepetitionerqualifiesfor classificationasa memberof theprofessions
holdingan advanceddegree,but thatthe petitionerhad not establishedthat an exemptionfrom the
requirementof ajob offerwouldbein thenationalinterestof theUnitedStates.
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v)states,in pertinentpart, "[aln officer to whom an appealis taken shall
summarilydismissany appealwhenthe partyconcernedfails to identify specificallyany erroneous
conclusionof law or statementof fact for theappeal."
On the FormI-290B Noticeof Appeal,counselcheckeda box reading"My brief and/oradditional
evidenceis attached."Therefore,the initial appellatesubmissionconstitutesthe entireappeal. The
petitionersubmittednoexhibitsonappealexceptfor acopyof thedenialnotice.
TheForm I-290B includesa spacefor thepetitionerto "[p]rovide a statementexplaininganyerroneous
conclusionof lawor factin thedecisionbeingappealed."Counselstates:
The record reflects through [the petitioner's] leading roles at prominent medical
institutionsalong with his historyof outstandingclinical successin additionto his
researchcontributionsto thesurgicalfield (specificallythehighlyspecializedminimally
invasivesubspecialtyof surgery)hasdemonstratedthat(1) hiswork hashadsubstantial
intrinsicmerit: (2) theimpactof his work hasspreadbeyondhis hospitalcommunityand
hada significantnationalinfluencein improvinghealthcare(numeroussurgeonshave
utilized [the petitioner's| researchin the clinical setting]: and (3) [the petitioner's]
abilitiesare exceptionaland standabovehis peers,suchthat a waiver of the labor
certificationprocesswouldbein thenationalinterest.
In anaccompanyingletter,counselassertsgenerallythatthepetitioner"hasmadegreatcontributionsto
the field . . . well attestedto by both his peerswith whom he hasworkedas well as independent
testimonialsfrom prominentmembersof the field at prominentinstitutions." Thedirector,in thedenial
notice, acknowledgedthe witnesses'lettersand quotedfrom severalof them,but found them to be
insufficientto establishthepetitioner'seligibility for thebenefitsought.Counsel,onappeal,doesnot
acknowledgethisdiscussionor explainhowthedirector'sconclusionsweredeficient. Counselasserts
onlythatthelettersestablishthepetitioner'seligibility.
Counselstatesthatthe medicalsocietiesto which the petitionerbelongsdo not requireoutstanding
achievements.but statesthat"this is thenorm." Thedirector,however,did not raisetheissueof the
Page3
petitioner'smembershipsasa basisfor denial. Counselfurtherassertsgenerallythatthepetitioner"has
judged the work of even senior peerson several[unspecified]levels." Counseldoesnot, however,
allegeany specificfactualor legal errorsor otherdeficienciesin the director'sdecision. Counsel
merely assertsthat, given (unidentified) "substantial evidence" of the petitioner's (unspecified)
achievements,thedirectorshouldhaveapprovedthepetition. Thedirector,in the denialnotice,had
acknowledgedthe"testimonials"mentionedby counsel,but foundthemto be unsubstantiated.Counsel
doesnotrespondtothisfinding.
Counsel,however,doesnot elaborateor explainhow thedirectorfailedto takethepetitioner'sprevious
evidenceinto consideration.Counseldoesnot allegeany specificfactualor legal errorsor other
deficienciesin thedirector'sdecision. Counselmerelyassertsthatthedirectorshouldhaveapproved
thepetition,whichis notasufficientbasisfor asubstantiveappeal.
Becausecounselhasfailedto identifyspecificallyanerroneousconclusionof lawor astatementof fact
asabasisfor theappeaLtheAAO mustsummarilydismisstheappeal.
TheAAO notesthat sinceobtaineda laborcertificationon
the petitioner'sbehalf. The employerthen filed a Form I-140 petition that includedthat labor
certification.ThedirectorapprovedthatpetitiononFebruary10,2012. Thepetitioneris,therefore,the
beneficiaryof anapprovedimmigrantpetitionwith laborcertification,in thesameclassificationthathe
soughtin thepresentproceeding.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.