dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Unknown

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3042 
Washington. DC 20529 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: EAC 03 174 52446 Office: 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: DhC 
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. 1 153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
2" % Q 
,a 'B=- 
J td Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 03 174 52446 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(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 March 4, 2005, counsel indicated that a brief would be 
forthcoming within thirty days. To date, over nine months later, careful review of the record reveals no 
subsequent submission; all other documentation in the record predates the issuance of the notice of decision. 
The statement on the appeal form reads, in its entirety: "The reviewing officer for the USCIS did not properly 
apply the criteria set forth by the Administrative Appeals Unit in Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation (AAO, 1998) to the facts and evidence presented by the Petitioner in this case." This is a general 
statement that makes no specific allegation of error. Counsel does not, for instance, explain how the director 
deviated from the precedent decision. 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 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.