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

Occupation not stated

Other / unclear · decided 2014-04-09 · TSC · APR092014_09B5203

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 director found that the petitioner does not qualify for classification as an alien of exceptional ability and that the petitioner had not established that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States. 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 found that the petitioner does not qualify for classification as an alien of exceptional ability and that the petitioner had not established that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States. See in text

What the AAO decided

Main reasons given

  • The petitioner has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided any additional evidence pertaining to his eligibility for the classification sought. See in text
Read the full decision (2 pages)

Objections found (1)

Automated tags. Each shows the sentence that triggered it.

  • The director found that the petitioner does not qualify for classification as an alien of exceptional ability and that the petitioner had not established that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States. See in text (p. 2)

Full decision

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

Highlighted: Outcome (1) AAO finding (1) Tagged objection (1)Matter of X citation
Decision header
DATE: APR 0 9 2014 · INRE: Petitioner: · Beneficiary: · Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · Office of Administrative Appeals 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 Washington, DC 20529-2090 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · PETITION: Immigrant 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:

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. § I 03.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO.

Thank you,

)l'OuJJ.Y\~ r Ron Rosenberg

\ Chief, Administrative Appeals

Office www.uscis.gov

NON-PRECEDENT DECISION

DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, 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 seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2), as an alien of exceptional ability. 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 does not qualify for classification as an alien of exceptional ability and that the petitioner had 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

In Part 2 of the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, the petitioner checked box "B" indicating "[m]y brief and/or additional evidence will be submitted to the AAO within 30 days."

Part 3 of the Form I-290B includes a space to "[p]rovide a statement explaining any erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the decision being appealed." Counsel states: "The brief and/or additional evidence will be submitted to the AAO within 30 days." In a September 20, 2013 letter accompanying the Form I-290B, counsel further states:

· The Applicant disagrees with this decision and would like to appeal this decision. Enclosed please find form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion along with the $630 filing fee to USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services]. Please note that the brief and/or additional evidence will be submitted to the AAO within 30 days.

Counsel's statements fail to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the director's decision. A passing reference without substantive arguments is insufficient to raise that ground on appeal. Desravines v. US Atty. Gen., 343 Fed.Appx. 433, 435 (11th Cir. 2009). Counsel does not specifically challenge any of the director's findings or point to specific errors in the director's analyses of the documentary evidence. In addition, counsel does not explain how the specific documentation that the petitioner submitted supports a finding of eligibility.

The appeal was filed on September 23, 2013. As of this date, more than six months later, the AAO has received nothing further.

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. The petitioner has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided any additional evidence pertaining to his eligibility for the classification sought. The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.