dismissed EB-1C Case: Business

identifYing data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
.. nasion of per~onal privacy 
P'UBLJCCOpy 
FILE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Securit) 
ll. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Admini:-.trati\c Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts i\\c .. N.\V .. MS 2090 
\\'ashington. DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigrationn 
Services 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
MAR 01 2011 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section203(b)(I)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 8 u.s.c. § 1153(b)(I)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: SELF·REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have bcen returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that oftice. 
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 tiling 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 tiling a Form 1-290B. Notice of Appeal or Motion. 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(a)( 1 )(i) requires that any motion must be tiled 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you. 
Perry Rhew 
XShief. Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.go\' 
, 
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 seeks to employ the beneficiary as its "manager/treasurer." 
Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant 
to section 203(b)(I)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (thc Act), 8 U.s.c. § 1153(b)(I)(C), as a 
multinational executive or manager. 
On September 28, 2009, the director denied the petition based on the determination that the petitioner failed 
to establish that it had been doing business in the United States for one year prior to tiling this petition as 
required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(D). 
On appeal, the beneficiary, on behalf of the petitioner, disputes the director's conclusion and states that a brief 
and/or additional information would be submitted within 30 days of the appeal. The remainder of the 
documents that were submitted at the time of the appeal included a notarized affidavit and two letters all three 
written by the beneficiary, who indicated that the petitioner submitted supporting documents. The 
beneficiary'S statements did not, however, explain which documents specifically address the primary 
deficiency that served as the basis for the director's decision, i.e" the lack of evidence establishing that the 
petitioner had been doing business for one full year prior to filing the Form 1-140. Additionally, with regard 
to the submission of further evidence and/or information in support of the appeal, the AAO notes that more 
than fifteen months have passed since the appeal was filed and the record has not been supplemented with any 
additional evidence or information. Accordingly, the record will be considered complete as currently 
constituted. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § I 03.3(a)( I )(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. 
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. Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify 
specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in this proceeding, the petitioner has not 
sustained that burden. Therefore, the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.