dismissed EB-1C Case: Boat Maintenance

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarr~ntecl 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: MAR 1 5 2012 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
u. S. Citizenship and lnunigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant 
to Section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § I I 53(b)(1)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 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$630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
PerryRhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will 
be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner is a Florida corporation that claims to be engaged in "boats maintenance services," 
and it seeks to employ the beneficiary as its "president/joint entrepreneur." Accordingly, the 
petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to 
section 203(b)(1)(C) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1 1 53(b)(I)(C), 
as a multinational executive or manager. 
On May 18, 2009, the director denied the immigrant petition determining that the petitioner did 
not submit the required initial evidence and supporting documentation with the Form 1-140. Aside 
from the statements made on the Form 1-140, the petitioner did not submit any evidence to 
support its petition. 
On June 19, 2009, the petitioner submitted the Form 1-290B to appeal the director's denial. The 
petitioner marked the box at part two of the Form I -290B to indicate that a brief and/or additional 
evidence will be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a copy of a $500.00 deposit made to the petitioner's bank 
account. The petitioner also submits a printout of the petitioner's information from the Florida 
Department of State Division of Corporation website. Furthermore, the petitioner submits the 
petitioner's Certificate ofIncorporation which was filed on February 13, 2009, seven days prior 
to filing the Form 1-140. 
The petitioner also submits a letter requesting that "your office disengage from your erroneous 
decision regarding this matter" and states that "I am attaching all documentation in regards to the 
questionnaire submitted by USCIS." Finally, the petitioner provides an affidavit from the 
beneficiary stating his birth date, his alien number, his place of residence and that he "served 
paper and documents in support of any position that states that this is the Affiant's attachment 
which explained the evidentiary requirements for the benefit sought." 
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. § 103.3(a)(I)(v). 
In regards to the director's conclusion that the petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence to 
show the beneficiary's eligibility for the immigrant petition, the petitioner fails to identify any 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. The petitioner claimed that the 
immigrant visa petition should be granted but did not provide any evidence to corroborate that 
claim. 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. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 
1972». 
Page 3 
As no evidence is presented on appeal to overcome the decision of the director, the appeal will 
be summarily dismissed in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.3( a) (1 )(v). 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 ofthe Act, 
8 U.S.c. § 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed. The petition is denied.