dismissed EB-1C Case: Applications Development

US. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Oflice ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
LIN 08 058 51446 
 SEP 0 4 2009 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider, as required by 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
\&+('-;; - 
/lo F. Grissom 
( 9 Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
rejected. 
The petitioner is a Delaware corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its applications 
development manager. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an 
employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. tj 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
Noting that the record was deficient, the director issued a notice dated April 11, 2008, requesting 
that additional evidence be submitted in support of the petition. After the petitioner failed to submit 
the requested evidence, the director denied the petition citing the petitioner's failure to respond to the 
request for evidence as the sole basis for denial. Thus, the petition was effectively dismissed for 
abandonment, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(13)(i), which states the following: 
If the petitioner or applicant fails to respond to a request for evidence or to a notice of 
intent to deny by the required date, the application or petition may be summarily 
denied as abandoned, denied based on the record, or denied for both reasons. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(15), a denial due to abandonment may not be appealed. As there is 
no appeal from the director's denial, the petitioner's appeal must be rejected. 
Moreover, even if the AAO were to consider the merits of the petitioner's appeal, it would 
nevertheless be dismissed, as it fails to overcome the director's ground for denial. Namely, counsel 
asserts that the director's decision was issued in error, as counsel did not receive the previously 
issued request for evidence. However, the evidence of record shows that counsel was not entitled to 
receive such document for two reasons. First, the issuance of a request for evidence or notice of 
intent is a discretionary matter to be determined by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS). USCIS is not required to issue a request for evidence. Second, the record shows that a 
Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance, was not filed by counsel at the time of filing the 
petition. Although the record contains an earlier Form G-28, dated August 14,2007, that Form G-28 
was filed by counsel on behalf of the beneficiary with regard to his Form 1-485, Application to 
Register Permanent Resident or Adjust Status. The record shows that the earliest Form G-28 filed 
by counsel on behalf of the petitioner was dated August 29, 2008, thereby indicating that the notice 
was filed along with the appeal. Thus, even if the director was required to issue a request for 
evidence in the present matter, counsel would not have been entitled to a copy of such notice, as she 
had not given USCIS notice of her representation of the petitioner at the time the request for 
evidence was issued. 
Additionally, with regard to any evidence or information that the petitioner failed to provide in 
response to the prior request for evidence, it is noted that the petitioner was put on notice of required 
evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the visa petition was 
adjudicated. Therefore, the AAO would not consider on appeal any evidence that the petitioner 
failed to submit in response to the request for evidence. See Matter ofsoriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 
(BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). 
Regardless, the record shows that the petition in the present matter was denied due to abandonment. 
As previously stated, no appeal lies from a petition that is denied on such ground. 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(15). 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.