dismissed EB-1C Case: Asphalt Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF J-USA, INC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 15,2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an asphalt repair and maintenance technology company, seeks to permanently employ 
the Beneficiary as its general manager and responsible managing employee under the first preference 
immigrant classification for multinational executives or managers. See Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act)§ 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C). This classification allows a U.S. employer to 
permanently transfer a qualified foreign employee to the United States to work in an executive or 
managerial capacity. 
The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the pet1t10n. The Director concluded that the 
evidence of record: (1) did not establish that the Beneficiary will be employed in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity; (2) did not establish that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad 
in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity; and (3) did not establish that the Petitioner has a 
qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. We will summarily dismiss the appeal. 
The Petitioner filed Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion. However, the Petitioner submitted 
no evidence or information addressing the actual grounds for denial; nor did the Petitioner dispute 
the ground for denial. Although the Petitioner marked Box 1(b) in Part 3 of Form I-290B, indicating 
that a brief and/or additional evidence would be submitted within 30 days, there is no evidence that 
the Petitioner has supplemented the record with any additional submissions. Accordingly, we will 
consider the record to be complete as it now stands. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part: 
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. 
The Petitioner has not specifically identified any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact as 
a basis for the appeal. As noted, the Petitioner did not provide a brief or additional evidence in 
support of the appeal despite indicating on Form I-290B that it intended do so. Moreover, the 
Petitioner did not provide with its appeal a separate statement regarding the basis of the appeal, as 
Matter of J- USA, Inc. 
instructed at Part 4 of Form I-290B. A petitioner filing an appeal is required to provide a statement 
that specifically identifies an erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the decision being appealed. 
Here, the Petitioner has made no reference or objection to the specific findings set forth in the 
Director's decision. Therefore, consistent with 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v), the appeal will be 
summarily dismissed. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely 
with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 
128 (BIA 2013). Because the Petitioner has not specifically identified an erroneous conclusion of 
law or a statement of fact in this proceeding, the Petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Cite as Matter of J-USA, Inc., ID# 15995 (AAO Mar. 15, 2016) 
2