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:
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 m·ust be made to that office. l
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 1-2908, 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 tile 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,
)) OUdr1dv.
C
Ron Rosenberg .
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office www.uscis.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 pursuant to 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 emolovment as a sumeon. At the time.he filed the petition, the petitioner was a resident at the in N~w York. He subsequently undertook a fellowship at in Detroit, Michigan. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) records show that he now works for , Des Moines, Iowa. The petitioner's Form I-290B, N,otice of Appeal shows a Des Moines address. 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 requir~ment of a job offer . would be in the national interest of the United States.
their .work published. " We again respectfully disagree with the assertion that [the petitioner's] ·voluminous publication history does not support the claim that he has established the ability to serve the national interest to a substantially greater extent than others in the field with the same minimal qualifications. We assert that no publications is the norm for Surgeons and [the petitioner's] publication rate is voluminous by any standard in comparison to Surgeons.
(Counsel's emphasis.) The director, in the denial notice, had already taken the petitioner's response to the RFE into account.· Counsel's repetition of the RFE response language does not rebut the director's findings or add anything of substance to the record. Significantly, counsel had previously placed great weight on the petitioner's research work (as opposed to his cliniGal practice as a surgeon). The director discussed publication in reference to the petitioner as a researcher, not as a surgeon. Counsel's observation that most surgeons are not researchers did not address the director's concerns as stated in the RFE, ~d the same observation, repeated on appeal, does not expose a. flaw in the denial notice. Similarly, counsel, on appeal, contends that the director did not give sufficient consideration to the petitioner's participation . in peer review .or the citation of his published work, but the director addressed both of these factors in the denial notice.Citation record not persuasive
The petitioner must articulate where the director erred in his decision. The repetition or recapitulation of previous assertions is not. a s~fficient basis for a substantive appeal. On appeal, counsel merely repeats prior assertions but does allege