dismissed EB-3

dismissed EB-3 Case: Marketing

📅 Date unknown 👤 Company 📂 Marketing

Decision Summary

The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner's counsel failed to submit a brief or any additional evidence to challenge the director's decision. Counsel did not identify any specific erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact, as required by regulation, leading to the dismissal.

Criteria Discussed

Beneficiary'S Qualifications Procedural Requirements For Appeal

View Full Decision Text

MATTER OF 0-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 1, 2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a life-style marketing agency, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as an advertising and 
promotions director. It requests classification of the Beneficiary as a skilled worker under the third 
preference immigrant classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
section 203(b)(3)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3)(A)(i). This employment-based immigrant classification 
allows a U.S. employer to sponsor a foreign national for lawful permanent resident status to work in a 
position that requires at least two years of training or experience. 
The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition after concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that the Beneficiary possessed the educational credentials required, based on the certified 
labor certification for the job offer. On appeal, counsel merely states that a brief and/or additional 
evidence will be submitted within 30 calendar days of filing the appeal. Counsel dated the appeal April 
12, 2016. As of this date, more than 3 months later, we have received nothing further, and the 
regulation requires that any brief shall be submitted directly to us. 8 C.P.R. §§ 103.3(a)(2)(vii) and 
(viii). 
As stated in 8 C.P.R. § 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. 
Counsel here has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided any 
additional evidence. Counsel has not even expressed disagreement with the director's decision. The 
appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
. ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 C.P.R.§ 103.3(a)(l)(v) . 
Cite as Matter of 0-, Inc., ID# 11966 (AAO Aug. 1, 20 16)

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.