dismissed
EB-1B
dismissed EB-1B Case: Research
Decision Summary
The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner failed to submit a brief or any evidence to support the appeal. The petitioner did not specifically address the reasons for the initial denial or identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact, which is grounds for a summary dismissal.
Criteria Discussed
Failure To Submit Brief Or Evidence Failure To Identify Erroneous Conclusion Of Law Or Fact
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 Washington, DC 20529 FILE: - Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: WAC 03 106 51018 PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Outstanding Professor or Researcher pursuant to Section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(B) ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: SELF-REPRESENTED INSTRUCTIONS: This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. L* hobert P. Wiemann. Director Administrative Appeals Office DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(B), as an outstanding professor or researcher. The director determined the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary qualifies for classification as an outstanding professor or researcher. On appeal, the petitioner indicated that a brief andfor evidence would be submitted to the AAO within sixty days. The appellate submission was unaccompanied by arguments or evidence addressing the pertinent regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i). The appeal was filed on December 19, 2003. As of this date, more than one year later, the AAO has received nothing further. As stated in 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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. The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
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.