dismissed EB-1C Case: Books And Magazines

identifLing data deleted lo 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
mvasion of pemnsl privacy 
U.S. Department of IIomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PUBLIC COPY 
 p.. 
EAC 06 078 52775 
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 1 153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
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. 
/ 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the employment-based petition. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner filed the instant immigrant petition to classify the beneficiary as a multinational manager or 
executive pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
5 11 53(b)(l)(C). The petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York that is 
engaged in the import, export and sale of books and magazines. The petitioner seeks to employ the 
beneficiary as its manager. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary 
would be employed by the United States entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
On Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal, filed on September 29,2006, counsel contends: 
The applicant was able to show that she will be employed on [sic] a managerial position. 
The statute was not intended to limit managers to a person who supervises a large number 
of individuals. A person may be a manager under the regulations, especially if he is the 
sole employee of the company where she utilizes outside independent contractor[s] or 
where business is complex. She may be a 'functional manager'. Matter of Irish Dairy 
Board, Ltd., case no. A28 845 42 1 (AAU Nov. 16, 1989); IKEA US, Inc. v. DO$ INS 48 F. 
Supp.2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); 9 FAM 41.54. 
Counsel requests sixty days from the date of filing the appeal to submit an appellate brief. 
As of this date, counsel has not submitted any additional documentation. The AAO notes that on June 4, 
2007, a request was sent to counsel via facsimile for an appellate brief or additional evidence. Counsel did 
not respond to the AAO's request. Accordingly, the record will be considered complete. 
To establish eligibility under section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act, the petitioner must meet certain criteria. 
Specifically, within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, a 
firm, corporation, or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof, must have employed the 
beneficiary for one continuous year. Furthermore, the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States to 
continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial 
or executive capacity. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. Counsel's 
brief statement on Form I-290B fails to acknowledge, much less resolve, the inadequacies that are discussed 
in detail in the director's denial. The record remains devoid of specific evidence requested by the director, 
including an organizational chart and a description of the petitioner's staffing levels on the date of filing, both 
of which would be relevant to determining the employment capacity of the beneficiary. Failure to submit 
requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 
8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(14). Counsel's general objections to the denial of the petition, without identifying any 
specific errors on the part of the director, are simply insufficient to overcome the well-founded and logical 
conclusions the director reached based on the evidence submitted by the petitioner. The unsupported 
statements of counsel on appeal or in a motion are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary 
weight. See INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 188-89 n.6 (1984); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 
503 (BIA 1980). 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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. 
Inasmuch as counsel has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in 
this proceeding, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has not demonstrated the existence of a qualifying 
relationship between the foreign and United States entities. 
In order to establish eligibility for classification as a multinational manager or executive for immigrant visa 
purposes, the petitioner must establish that it maintains a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign 
employer; the foreign corporation or other legal entity that employed the beneficiary must continue to exist 
and have a qualifying relationship with the petitioner at the time the immigrant petition is filed. 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(j)(3)(i)(C). To establish a qualifying relationship under the Act and the regulations, the petitioner 
must show that the beneficiary's foreign employer and the proposed United States employer are the same 
employer (i.e. a United States entity with a foreign office) or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as 
"affiliates." 
 See generally 5 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(C); see also 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(j)(2) (providing definitions of the terms "affiliate" and "subsidiary"). A multinational manager or 
executive is one who "seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to render services to the same 
employer or to a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial or executive." Section 
203(b)(l)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(C). 
Despite the director's request for evidence of a qualifying relationship, the petitioner failed to submit 
documentation that the beneficiary's foreign employer and the United States entity enjoyed a qualifying 
relationship on the date of filing. In fact, the record is devoid of evidence identifying the beneficiary's foreign 
employer, or demonstrating its existence prior to the beneficiary's entrance into the United States as a 
nonimmigrant and at the time the immigrant petition was filed. The failure to submit requested evidence that 
precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(14). As the 
petitioner has not offered any evidence relating to the existence or ownership of the foreign entity, the AAO 
cannot determine whether a qualifying relationship existed between the foreign and United States entities. 
For this reason, the petition may be denied. 
An additional issue not addressed by the director is whether the beneficiary was employed by the foreign 
entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner has not offered any evidence of the capacity in which the beneficiary was employed in the 
foreign entity. As noted previously, the extremely limited record fails to identi6 the beneficiary's foreign 
employer or her purported employment in the overseas company. Absent documentary evidence of the 
specific managerial or executive tasks performed by the beneficiary in the foreign entity, the AAO cannot 
conclude that the beneficiary was employed by the overseas company as a manager or executive. Going on 
Page 4 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof 
in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 15 8, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft 
of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). The petition may be denied for this additional reason. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by 
the AAO even if the Service Center does not identi@ all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 29 1 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.