dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Administration

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBUCCOPY 
Date: OCT 3 1 2011 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration 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)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § I I 53(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us iu 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 1-2908, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
erry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscls.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 _corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its executive administrator. 
Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classifY the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant 
to section 203(b)(1 )(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1 )(C), as a 
multinational executive or manager. 
On August 24, 2009, the director denied the petition based on the determination that the petitioner failed to 
submit any evidence in support of its Fonn 1-140 and thus failed to establish eligibility to classifY the 
beneficiary as a multinational manager or executive. 
On appeal, the beneficiary, on behalf of the petitioner, disputes the director's conclusion and states that a brief 
and/or additional infonnation would be submitted within 30 days of the appeal. The beneficiary indicated 
that she was submitting "all corporate papers," but provided no infonnation about the documents she claimed 
would be submitted. The remainder of the documents that were submitted at the time ofthe appeal included a 
notarized affidavit and two letters, all three documents written by the beneficiary, who indicated that the 
petitioner submitted supporting documents. The beneficiary submitted a fourth letter asking that the petition 
be approved based on the beneficiary's desire to remain in the United States. The beneficiary claimed that 
she came to the United States as an illegal immigrant and has been awaiting some type of immigration refonn 
while she continues her employment in the private sector. Although the petitioner's articles of incorporation 
and certificate of incorporation were submitted, none of the documents that were submitted in support of the 
appeal explain how the petitioner meets the eligibility criteria that is expressly delineated at section 
203(b)(1 )(C) of the Act. Additionally, with regard to the submission offurther evidence and/or infonnation 
in support of the appeal, the AAO notes that more than two years have passed since the appeal was filed and 
the record has not been supplemented with any additional evidence or infonnation. Accordingly, the record 
will be considered complete as currently constituted. 
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. 
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.