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 (AAO) in your case. This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration , you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision . Please review the Form I-290B instructions at http://www .usci s.gov/form s for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. See also 8 C.F .R. § 1 03 .5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO.
Thank you , rlf:~~:~;trative Appeals Office www.uscis.gov
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. We 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 middle school mathematics teacher at _ Arizona. 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 of the United States.No interest from users, customers or investors
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent pmt, "[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, filed on February 27, 2014, the petitioner indicated that a brief and/or additional evidence would be forthcoming within thirty days. To date, eight months later, careful review of the record reveals no subsequent submission; all other documentation in the record predates the issuance of the notice of decision.
The statement submitted with the appeal alleges that "the Decision is based on enoneous conclusion of law and erroneous conclusion and/or statement of fact," but the petitioner did not identify these errors or show that the director 's conclusions and statements were, in fact, erroneous. The bare assertion that the director somehow ened in rendering the decision is not sufficient basis for a substantive appeal. Because the petitioner has failed to identify specifically an enoneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact as a basis for the appeal, we must summarily dismiss the appeal.
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.