dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Unknown

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarr~nted 
invasion of personal pnvacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: 
JUN 0 9 2011 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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 FILE: 
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: 
SELF -REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find 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 law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or 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 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
J:Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center. In response to two motions the petitioner filed, the director withdrew the previous 
decision and issued a new notice of denial. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 
(AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the hnmigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(2), as an alien of exceptional ability or a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. The petitioner asserts that an exemption from the requirement of a job 
offer, and thus of an alien employment certification, is in the national interest of the 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. 
On appeal, the petitioner stated that he would submit a brief and/or evidence to the Administrative 
Appeals Office (AAO) within 90 days, listing the evidence that he would submit. All of the proposed 
evidence postdates the filing of the petition and, thus, would have no bearing on the petitioner's 
eligibility as of that date. See 8 c.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 
(Reg'l. Comm'r. 1971). The petitioner dated the appeal May 3,2010. As of this date, more than one 
year later, the AAO has received nothing further. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(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 here has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided any 
additional evidence. He has not even expressed disagreement with the director's decision. The appeal 
must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.