dismissed EB-3

dismissed EB-3 Case: Accounting

📅 Date unknown 👤 Company 📂 Accounting

Decision Summary

The appeal was summarily dismissed because the Petitioner failed to identify any specific erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact from the Director's decision. Although the Petitioner indicated on the appeal form that a brief would be submitted, none was received.

Criteria Discussed

Failure To Identify Erroneous Conclusion Of Law Or Fact

View Full Decision Text

.
MATTER OF P-E-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 15,2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a senior accountant. It 
requests her classification as a skilled worker under the third-preference, immigrant category. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(3)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3)(A)(i). The 
Director of the Nebraska 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 any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
On appeal, 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. 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 filing. However, we have not received anything further from the Petitioner to date. 
Because the Petitioner has not identified any 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)(l )(v). 
Cite as Matter of P-E-. Inc., ID# 598619 (AAO Aug. 15, 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.