dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Unknown

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Avr., N.W.. Rm. A3042 
identifying data deleted to 
pler~rtw-td 
ilmdom~prrml~ 
pRlBuCCOPY 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: - Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: DLc 1 2005 
SRC 05 066 5 1040 
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. 
v' 
O Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Off~ce on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
8 C.F.R. § 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 April 4, 2005, counsel did not indicate that a separate brief or 
evidence accompanied the appeal form, or that any further submission would be forthcoming. Instead, counsel 
indicated "I am not submitting a separate brief or evidence." Thus, counsel's statement on the Form I-290B itself 
constitutes the entire appeal. 
The statement on the appeal form reads, in its entirety: "The standards set forth in Matter ofNew York State Dept 
of Transportation (AAO, Aug. 7 1998, EAC-96-063-51031) in regard to employment based 2" preference 
immigrant petition with request for a National Interest Waiver were wrongly applied to this petition by the 
Citizenship and Immigration Services." This is a general statement that makes no specific allegation of error. 
Counsel does not identify the "standards" in question, nor does counsel explain how the director wrongly applied 
those standards in the present matter. The bare assertion that the director somehow erred in rendering the 
decision is not sufficient basis for a substantive appeal. 
Inasmuch as counsel has failed to identi5 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.