dismissed EB-1C

dismissed EB-1C Case: Retail Management

📅 Date unknown 👤 Company 📂 Retail Management

Decision Summary

The appeal was summarily dismissed on procedural grounds because the petitioner failed to identify a specific erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the director's decision. The petitioner made only a general statement and did not submit a promised appellate brief, leading to the dismissal under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v).

Criteria Discussed

Managerial Or Executive Capacity Failure To Identify Specific Error In Appeal

View Full Decision Text

U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
MATTER OF R-P- INC.
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office
DATE: DEC. 28, 2018
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER
The Petitioner, a gas station and convenience store, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as
its chief executive officer under the fir~t preference immigrant classification for multinational
executives or managers. Immigration and Nationality Act section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C.
§ l l 53(b)(l )(C). This classification allows a U.S. employer to permanently transfer a qualified foreign
employee to the United States to work in an _executive or managerial capacity. . .
The Acting Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record
did not establish, as required, that the Beneficiary will be employed in the United States, and has
b~en employed abroad, in a managerial or executive capacity. 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. § I03.3(a)(l)(v). The Petitioner made only the general statement the Director's decision "is
a misinterpretation of the regulatory standards." The Petitioner did not cite any specific regulation
or explain how the Director misinterpreted it. The Petitioner indicated that it would submit an
appellate brief within 30 days, but to date, 10 months atler the filing of the appeal, the recora does
not contain any brief or other supplement to the record.
Because the Petitioner has not identified a specific, erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact
in the Director's decision, we must summarily dismiss ·1he appeal.
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § I 03.3(a)( l )(v).
Cite as Matter(?f R-P-lnc., ID# 1956713 (AAO Dec. 28, 2018)

Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

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.