dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Unknown

(b)(6)
DATE: APR 1 1 2014 
INRE : Petitioner: 
Beneficiary : 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citi zenship and Immigration Servic es 
Admin istrative Appeal s Office (AAO) 
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 Professi ons Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b )(2) of the Immigr ation 
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 (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-preced ent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of Jaw nor establish agency 
policy through non-pr ecedent 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. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
~~~ 
'5....-Ron Rose~ 
Chief , Administrative Appe als Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will 
summarily dismiss the appeal. 
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, 
in pertinent part, "[ a]n 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 September 5, 2013, the petitioner stated: "I submitted 
many evidences of the request and could not see that they have been fairly interpreted by the officer 
who made the decision. I am committed to provide you with supporting documentations within 30 days 
of the date of September 2nd." To date, more than seven months after the filing of the appeal, careful 
review of the record reveals no subsequent submission; all other documentation in the record predates 
the issuance of the notice of decision. 
The petitioner's statement on appeal contains no specific allegation of error, only the assertion that 
unspecified evidence was not "fairly interpreted." This general claim that the director somehow erred 
in rendering the decision is not sufficient basis for a substantive appeal. 
Because the petitioner has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement 
of fact as a basis for the appeal, the AAO must summarily dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.