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 Adrri.inistrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents . related to this matter have bee~ 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 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,
?Ron Rosenbe&..--J
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office www.uscis.gov
Page 2 (
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, derued 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 specializ"ing in nephrology. 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 di~ector 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 intere~t of the United States. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v) states," in pertinent part, "[a]n 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."
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 exhibits on appeal except for a copy of the denial notice. The four-paragraph statement on the appeal form consists entirely of language copied directly from an earlier' letter from counsel, submitted in response to a May 1, 2012 request for evidence. The director already addressedthe petitioner's response to that notice, and found it in.sufficient to establish eligibility for the benefit sought. Resubmission of the same statement on appeal adds nothing of substance to the record. Because all of the 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 t() identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact as a basis for the appeal, the AAO must summarily dismiss the appeal.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. .