dismissed L-1B

dismissed L-1B Case: Software Development

📅 Date unknown 👤 Company 📂 Software Development

Decision Summary

The appeal was summarily dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet procedural requirements. The Petitioner indicated it would submit a brief or additional evidence within 30 days but never did, and therefore failed to identify any specific erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the Director's decision.

Criteria Discussed

Failure To Identify Error On Appeal

View Full Decision Text

MATTER OF A-C-C-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 30, 2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a software development consulting services company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "system analyst under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(L). The Director of the California 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. § 1 03.3(a)(l )(v). 
On appeal, the Petitioner did not provide a statement in support of the appeal that specifically 
identifies an erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the decision. On the Form I-290B, 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. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Cite as Matter qf A-C-C-, ID# 803094 (AAO Nov. 30, 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.