Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Sectiqn 203(b)(2) of the Immigr ation 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-pr ecedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorr ectly 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.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. See also 8 C.F .R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO.
Thank you,
~~{r(erg
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, (director) denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition. Upon a subsequent motion to reconsider the director affirmed his decision to deny the petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed.
The petitioner describes itself as a health care business. It seeks to permanently employ the beneficiary in the United States as a speech language pathologist. The petitioner requests classification of the beneficiary as an advanced degree professional pursuant to section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2).1 The director denied the petition on March 12, 2013, because the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary met the minimum educational requirements stated on the labor certification. The director granted a motion to reconsider and on May 16, 2013, the director affirmed his decision to deny the petition because the petitioner had failed to establish that the beneficiary met the minimum educational requirements stated on the labor certification.
On appeal, counsel merely stated that "[t]his is an appeal ofthe denial of the motion to reopen and the denial of the 1-140 petition." Counsel dated the appeal June 10, 2013, and indicated that a brief and/or additional evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. As of this date, more than five months later, the AAO has received nothing further, and the regulation requires that any brief shall be submitted directly to the AAO. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.3(a)(2)(vii) and (viii). As stated in 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal.
Counsel 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.
Section 203(b )(2) of the Act provides immigrant classification to members of the professions holding advanced degrees, whose services are sought by an employer in the United States.