dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Unknown

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
OfBce of Administrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
invasion of p;::un~! pr;vacy 
PUBLIC COP@ 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
?-+4,, S$~+ Services 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
EAC 06 019 50141 
 JUN 0 8 2009 
IN RE: 
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. 5 1 153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. 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 $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
_/~~@nClc 
fi John F. Grissom 
' Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
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. fj 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 the classification sought, 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 merely stated that he would submit a brief andlor evidence to the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) within 30 days of April 6, 2007. As of this date, more than two 
years later, the AAO has received nothing hrther. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. fj 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 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.