Degree or an Alien· of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b)(2) ofthe 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 in your case. All ofthe 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 AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen.
Thank you, on Rosenberg
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office www.usc:is.gov
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 petitioner seeks classification under section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The petitioner seeks employment as a physician specializing in hematology and oncology. 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 has not established that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest ofthe United States.No interest from users, customers or investors An 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." 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v).
On the Form I-290B Notice of Appeal, the petitioner checked a box reading ''No supplemental brief and/or additional evidence will be submitted." Therefore, the initial appellate submission constitutes the entire appeal. The petitioner submitted no e:xlu.bits on appeal except for a copy of the denial notice. The statement on the appeal form consists entirely of language copied directly from an earlier letter from counsel, submitted in response to an April 12, 2012 request for evidence. The director already addressed the petitioner's response to that notice, and found it insufficient to establish eligibility for the benefit sought. Resubmission ofthe same statement on appeal adds nothing of substance to the record. Because all ofthe appellate language existed prior to the denial notice, it identifies no specific error of fact or law in the denial notice. The repeated assertion that the director should have approved the petition is not a sufficient basis for a substantive appeal.
Inasmuch as counsel has failed to identifY specifically an erroneous conclusion oflaw or a statement of fact a8 a basis for the appeal, the AAO must summarily dismiss the appeal.
I
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.