dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Unknown

(b)(6)
DATE: APR 0 9 2014 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
)l'OuJJ.Y\~ 
r Ron Rosenberg 
\ Chief, Administrative Appeals 
Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition and the 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
summarily dismissed. 
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 an alien of exceptional ability. 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 does not qualify for classification as an alien 
of exceptional ability and 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. 
In Part 2 of the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, the petitioner checked box "B" indicating 
"[m]y brief and/or additional evidence will be submitted to the AAO within 30 days." 
Part 3 of the Form I-290B includes a space to "[p]rovide a statement explaining any erroneous 
conclusion of law or fact in the decision being appealed." Counsel states: "The brief and/or 
additional evidence will be submitted to the AAO within 30 days." In a September 20, 2013 letter 
accompanying the Form I-290B, counsel further states: 
· The Applicant disagrees with this decision and would like to appeal this decision. Enclosed 
please find form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion along with the $630 filing fee to 
USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services]. Please note that the brief and/or 
additional evidence will be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. 
Counsel's statements fail to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the director's 
decision. A passing reference without substantive arguments is insufficient to raise that ground on 
appeal. Desravines v. US Atty. Gen., 343 Fed.Appx. 433, 435 (11th Cir. 2009). Counsel does not 
specifically challenge any of the director's findings or point to specific errors in the director's 
analyses of the documentary evidence. In addition, counsel does not explain how the specific 
documentation that the petitioner submitted supports a finding of eligibility. 
The appeal was filed on September 23, 2013. As of this date, more than six months later, the AAO 
has received nothing further. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the party concerned 
fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. The 
petitioner has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided any 
additional evidence pertaining to his eligibility for the classification sought. The appeal must 
therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.