dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Unknown

U.S. Deparlment of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W.. Rm. A3042 
Wash~tigton, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: - Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: , . A A, L .U 
SRC 04 008 5 1454 
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. 11 53(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. 
u 
9bert 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 Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. 4 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 a labor 
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, counsel merely stated that the petitioner is qualified for the benefit sought and that additional letters 
were. being submitted. Counsel indicated that he would submit a brief andlor evidence to the Administrative 
Appeals Office (AAO) withn 30 days. No additional letters were included with the appeal. 
Counsel dated the appeal December 16, 2004. As of August 18, 2005, more than eight months later, the AAO 
had received nothlng further. Thus, on that date, this office contacted counsel by facsimile, advising that we had 
received no additional materials, inquiring as to whether anything had been submitted and requesting a copy of 
any additional materials submitted. The facsimile advised that failure to respond to our inquiry within five 
business days may result in the summary dismissal of the appeal. As of this date, approximately three weeks 
later, this office has received no response. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(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. 
Merely affirming the petitioner's purported eligbility is not a substantive appeal. Counsel here has not 
specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided any additional evidence. The appeal 
must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.