dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management

identifying data deleted to 
1 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacj 
U.S. Department of fIon~eland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: LIN 07 025 52843 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: MAR 0 4 2009 
IN RE: 
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. § 1 153(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 or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. 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 $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider, as required by 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
John F. ~rigsorn, Acting chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
{IN 07 025 52843 
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 was organized as a limited liability company in the State of Florida and seeks to 
employ the beneficiary as its commercial and operations 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. 5 1153(b)(l)(C), as a 
multinational executive or manager. The director denied the petition based on the determination that 
the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive 
capacity. 
The petitioner submitted an appeal, asserting that the director committed a procedural error by 
denying the petition on the basis of an issue that had not been addressed in the previously issued 
request for additional evidence (RFE). The petitioner also indicated that a brief and/or additional 
information would be submitted within 30 days in support of the appeal. To date, however, the 
petitioner has not supplemented the record with further evidence or documentation addressing the 
director's ground for denial. Accordingly, the record will be considered complete as currently 
constituted. 
With regard to the contention that a denial cannot be based on an issue that had not been previously 
brought up in the RFE, the petitioner's argument is without merit. More specifically, the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(8) states in part the following with regard to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) requests for additional evidence: 
(ii) hitial evidence. If all required initial evidence is not submitted with the 
application or petition or does not demonstrate eligibility, USCIS in its discretion 
may deny the application or petition for lack of initial evidence or for ineligibility or 
request that the missing initial evidence be submitted within a specified period of 
time as determined by USCIS. 
(iii) Other evidence. If all required initial evidence has been submitted but the 
evidence submitted does not establish eligibility, USCIS may: deny the application or 
petition for ineligibility; request more information or evidence from the applicant or 
petitioner, to be submitted within a specified period of time as determined by USCIS; 
or notify the applicant or petitioner of its intent to deny the application or petition and 
the basis for the proposed denial, and require that the applicant or petitioner submit a 
response within a specified period of time as determined by USCIS. 
Thus, according to the above, the subject matter of an WE and even the decision to issue an RFE are 
both in the discretion of the director. There is no provision that requires the director to first address 
a potential basis for denial in an RFE prior to issuing an adverse decision. 
Additionally, the appeals process itself allows the petitioner the opportunity to address the director's 
denial by presenting any additional evidence or information the petitioner deems necessary to 
overcome the basis for the adverse decision, especially where such evidence has not previously been 
im 07 02s 52843 
* Page 3 
requested by the director. In the present matter, the petitioner failed to make use of this opportunity. 
As indicated above, despite the petitioner's indication that the appeal would be provided within 30 
days, nearly ten months since the Form 1-290 was filed, the record is void of any additional evidence 
or information. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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. 4 1361. Inasmuch as the petitioner has only 
identified a perceived procedural error and 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.