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

Occupation not stated

Other / unclear · decided 2014-09-04 · TSC · SEP042014_02B5203

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
    The Director's denial rested on this
    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) .The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary possessed an advanced degree or qualified for the proffered position. p. 2

The decision in brief

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

Summary sentence

The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary possessed an advanced degree or qualified for the proffered position. See in text

What the AAO decided

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)Matter of X citation
    Decision header
    DA TE:SEP 0 4 2014 OFFICE : TEXAS SERVICE CENTER · INRE: Petitioner : · Beneficiary: U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 20 Massachu setts Ave. , N.W., MS 2090 Washington , DC 20529-2090 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services FILE: · PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an

    Advanced Degree or an AI ien 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.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,

    L0.;~ R;;;; Rosenberg

    Chief, Administrative Appeals Office

    NON-PRECEDENT DECISION

    DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center (the director) denied the immigrant visa petition and the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed.

    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) .The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary possessed an advanced degree or qualified for the proffered position.

    On the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, counsel made no argument as a basis for the appeal. Counsel indicated that she would file a brief and/or additional evidence within thirty days. The petitioner dated the appeal July 1, 2014. As of this date, more than 55 days later, we have received nothing further, and the regulation requires that any brief shall be submitted directly to us. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.3(a)(2)(vii) and (viii).

    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 fact for the appeal.

    Counsel here has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided any additional evidence. She has not even expressed disagreement with the director's decision. The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed.

    ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.