dismissed EB-2 NIW

dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Unknown

📅 Date unknown 👤 Individual 📂 Unknown

Decision Summary

The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner failed to identify a specific error of law or fact in the director's decision. Although the petitioner indicated a brief would be submitted, none was received, leading to dismissal on procedural grounds under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v).

Criteria Discussed

Failure To Identify Erroneous Conclusion Of Law Or Fact

View Full Decision Text

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF B-F-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 18,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, seeks classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b )(2), 8 U .S.C. § 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer 
requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services may grant this 
discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the 
national interest to do so. 
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. § 1 03.3(a)(1 )(v). 
The Petitioner did not provide a statement in support of the appeal that specifically identities an 
erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the decision being appealed. Instead, the two-sentence 
statement submitted with the appeal is general and vague. On the Form 1-2908, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, the Petitioner stated that a brief or additional evidence would be submitted within 30 days of 
the October 3, 2016, tiling date. However, we have not received anything further from the Petitioner 
to date. 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. § I 03.3(a)( 1 )(v). 
Cite as Matter of B-F-, ID# 596781 (AAO Aug. 18, 20 17)

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.