dismissed
EB-1A
dismissed EB-1A Case: Education
Decision Summary
The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner failed to identify a specific erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact from the original decision, as required by 8 C.F.R. ยง 103.3(a)(l)(v). The petitioner's attorney also indicated that the appeal was considered moot as the beneficiary had departed the United States.
Criteria Discussed
Failure To Identify Specific Error On Appeal
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
MATTER OF G-M-C-P-S- APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office DATE: SEPT. 5, 2017 PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER The Petitioner, a public school district, seeks classification of the Beneficiary as an individual of extraordinary ability in education. See Immigration and Nationality Act section 203(b )(1 )(A), 8 U.S.C. ยง 1153(b)(l)(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. Upon review, we will summarily dismiss the appeal. An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party concerned fails to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 8 C.F.R. ยง 103.3(a)(l)(v). The Petitioner did not provide a statement in support of the appeal that specifically identifies an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the decision being appealed. On the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, the Petitioner stated that a brief or additional evidence would be submitted within 30 days of the June 6, 2017, filing date. However, to date we have not received a sufficient statement from the Petitioner. Instead, we have received correspondence from the Petitioner's attorney of record, indicating that the Beneficiary has departed the United States and the Petitioner considers the appeal moot. Because the Petitioner has not identified a specific, erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the Director's decision below, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. ยง 103.3(a)(l)(v). Cite as Matter ofG-M-C-P-S-, ID# 835275 (AAO Sept. 5, 2017)
Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial
MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.
Avoid This in My Petition →No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.