dismissed EB-1C Case: Automotive Manufacturing

(b)(6)
·. 
U.S . .Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Servi' 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: OCT 0 7 2013 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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 . § 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of Jaw nor establish 
agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law 
or policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to 
reconsider or a motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or 
Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B 
instructions at http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and 
other requirements. See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
(J~ 7 # 
~P~ ~n-_ 
?(.Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
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 summarily 
dismissed. 
The petitioner is engaged in the manufacturing of auto chassis, and seeks to employ the beneficiary as its 
CEO/General 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. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
On June 11, 2013, the director denied the immigrant petition concluding the following: (1) the petitioner 
failed to establish that the beneficiary's employment abroad was within a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity; and, (2) the petitioner failed to establish that it would employ the beneficiary in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
On July 11, 2013, counsel for the petitioner submitted the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, to 
appeal the director's denial. Counsel marked the box at patt two of the Form I-290B to indicate that a brief 
and/or additional evidence will be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. The record indicates that the 
petitioner did not file a brief or supplemental evidence within the allowed timeframe. Accordingly, the record 
will be considered complete as presently constituted. 
The regulations at 8 C.P.R.§ 103.3(a)(l)(v) state, 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. 
Upon review, the director's decision to deny the petition will be ·affirmed. While counsel provided a brief 
statement generally disagreeing with the director's decision at part 2 of the Form I-290B, neither counsel nor 
the petitioner has not identified an enoneous conclusion of law or statement of fact on the part of the director 
as a basis for the appeal. Counsel cites to the regulations but failed to provide any additional evidence to 
overcome the director's concerns and does not articulate how the director misapplied the regulations to the 
facts presented. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm' r 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)). 
Accordingly, the appeal will be summarily dismissed in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's 
burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.