L-1A Dismissed — Investments And Construction (2006): the petitioner failed to specifically identify any

Decision Summary

The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner failed to specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the director's decision. The AAO also affirmed the denial on the merits, finding that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity or that the new office had met the requirements for an extension, such as demonstrating sufficient staffing and financial viability.

Criteria Discussed

Sign up free to download the original PDF