dismissed EB-3

dismissed EB-3 Case: Accounting

📅 Date unknown 👤 Company 📂 Accounting

Decision Summary

The appeal was summarily dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet procedural requirements. The Petitioner did not provide a statement, brief, or any evidence that specifically identified an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the original decision, which is grounds for summary dismissal 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 A-M-A-S-, INC. 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 28. 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a software development company. seeks to employ the Beneficiary as an accountant. 
It requests classification of the Beneficiary as a professional under the third preference immigrant 
classification. S'ee Immigration and Nationality Act, section 203(b)(3)(A)(ii). 8 l!.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(3)(A)(ii). This employment-based immigrant classification allows a U.S. employer to 
sponsor a professional with a baccalaureate degree for lawful permanent resident status. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center initially approved the petition in 2009 but revoked it on 
January 31. 2017. The matter is now before us on appeal. Upon review. '"'e \viii 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 statement of fact in the decision being appealed. On the Form 
I-2908, Notice of Appeal or Motion. the Petitioner stated that a brief or additional evidence would 
be submitted within 30 days of the February 17. 2017. 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. § 1 03.3(a)( I )(v). 
Cite as Matter olA-M-A-S-, Inc .. ID# 799444 (AAO Nov. 28. 2017)

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.