PetitionLens
Log inGet started
All decisions
DismissedEB-2 · Motion to reopen & reconsider

Occupation not stated

Other / unclear · decided 2013-02-28 · service center unknown · FEB282013_01B5203

Official PDF on uscis.gov

Decided under the old NYSDOT test, replaced by Matter of Dhanasar on Dec 27, 2016. Useful for background only.

How each part of the test was decided

Read from the appeals office's own sentences by fixed rules, not from the Director's findings or the petitioner's arguments. Each result shows the sentence it came from. The official PDF controls.

  • Step 0Eligible for EB-2Not decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

The decision in brief

Sentences picked out of the text automatically. Read them in context below; the official PDF controls.

What the AAO decided

Main reasons given

  • The petitioner does not provide any new evidence or agruments on appeal addressing the beneficiary's ineligibility. See in text
  • The petitioner here has not specifically addressed the: reasons stated for denial and has not provided any additional evidence. See in text
Read the full decision (2 pages)

Objections found (0)

Automated tags. Each shows the sentence that triggered it.

No catalog objection was detected in the analysis section.

    Full decision

    OCR text from the official PDF, reformatted for reading. Scan errors carry over; the PDF controls.

    Highlighted: Outcome (1) AAO finding (2)Matter of X citation
    Decision header
    v~s;: Departmeut :or Homeland:Sfturlty u ~s: Ciiiz~nship a~d ~~;Digratio~ services · Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 · Washington , DC 20529-2090 U.S. Citizenshi .... . .... p .and Innnigra!iQn Services · , . · DATE: OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: FEB 2 8 2013 · IN RE: Petitioner: · Beneficiary: · PETITION: Inimigrant 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. § 1153(b)(2) ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:

    SELF-REPRESENTED

    . 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 ha~~ 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 infqrmation that· you wish to have consider~d, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in accordance with the instructions·on Forin 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,

    . I

    Ron Rosenberg

    Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office

    DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigr~t visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service center. The director reopened the matter sua sponte, and again denied the petition. The petitioner appealed the denial to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The appeal will be summarily dism!ssed. !

    The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary pursuapt to section 203(b )(2) of the hnmigration and . Nationality Act (theAct), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2) as a professional holding an advanced degree .. The director determined that the petitioner failed to· demonstrate that the beneficiary possessed an . advanced degree or a bachelors degree coupled with ~ve years of experience as of the priority date. On appeal, the petitioner exhorts the AAO to examin~ a credential evaluation which had previou5ly been provided to-the director. The petitioner does not provide any new evidence or agruments on appeal addressing the beneficiary's ineligibility.

    I

    · As stated in 8 C.F.R. § 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 fa~t 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.