dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management

"mifying data deleted to 
prevent clear i~ inw arrdnted 
invasion of 9eisor1al privacy 
PUBT, JC COP k 
US. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Of$ce ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
n 
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 1153(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. 5 103.5 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 or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. tj 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
erry Rhew 
"Jhief, Administrative Appeals Office 
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 dismissed. 
The petitioner is a Georgia corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its general 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. fj 1153(b)(l)(C), as a 
multinational executive or manager. 
After reviewing the record, the director determined that the petitioner failed to establish that it would employ 
the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity and denied the petition on that basis. 
On appeal, the petitioner provides two statements dated May 12, 2008. The statement titled "Appeal of 
Motion to Reopen" summarizes the petitioner's list of employees, including their names, social security 
numbers, and respective salaries for 2006 and 2007. The petitioner also submitted 2006 and 2007 tax 
documents. With the exception of the petitioner's 2007 tax return, the remainder of the tax documents had 
been previously submitted either in support of the petition or in response to the director's request for 
additional evidence. The AAO further notes that a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a 
petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new 
set of facts. Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971). As the Form 1-140 in the present matter 
was filed in 2006, tax documents that reflect the petitioner's financial status after the filing of the petition are 
not relevant for the purpose of establishing the petitioner's eligibility at the time of filing. 
The petitioner's second statement dated May 12, 2008 is a mere recreation of the statement that the petitioner 
initially submitted in support of its Form 1-140. The only difference between the initially submitted statement 
and the one submitted on appeal was the percentage of time that was attributed to one of the four items that 
were listed as part of the beneficiary's job description. Specifically, in the initial support letter that was dated 
December 7, 2006, the petitioner indicated that 40% of the beneficiary's time would be attributed to cost 
control, reviewing proposals, supervision of personnel, purchasing equipment, and managing the budget. In 
the more recent letter submitted in support of the appeal, the petitioner attributed 30% of the beneficiary's 
time to the same set of responsibilities. It appears that the petitioner made this change upon taking note of the 
comment on page two of the denial, where the director observed that the total of the percentage breakdown 
amounted to 110% rather than 100%. The new percentage breakdown submitted on appeal seemingly 
corrects the factual impossibility of the prior percentage breakdown. The remainder of the content of the 
letter is nearly identical to the content of the initial support letter. 
Despite the director's finding that the petitioner's staffing composition lacked the organizational complexity to 
support the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity and the determination that the petitioner failed 
to establish that the beneficiary would primarily perform qualifying managerial or executive tasks, the 
petitioner did not address or even dispute these valid criticisms. Thus, the petitioner's entire appeal consists 
of information that was previously submitted in one form or another and none of the submissions address the 
key elements of the director's decision. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 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. 5 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.