dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management

(b)(6)
DATE: MAY 2 3 2013 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE : Petitioner: 
Beneficiary : 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citi zen ship and Immigration Servi( 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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. § ll53(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case . All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630 . The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § I 03 .5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
t#-J Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
(b)(6)
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 New Jersey corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its president. 
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 10, 2012, the director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish 
that the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. In denying the 
petition, the director found that the petitioner did not present sufficient evidence to establish that the 
beneficiary had subordinates to carry out non-managerial duties associated with the company's day-to­
day operations. The director found that the beneficiary's actual time devoted to non-qualifying 
functions would exceed that which is spent on purely managerial or executive duties for the U.S. 
company. 
On September 6, 2012, the petitioner submitted the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, to 
appeal the denial of the underlying petition. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. The petitioner marked the box at part two of the Form 
I-290B to indicate that a brief and/or additional evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 
days. The record indicates that the petitioner did not file a brief or supplemental evidence within the 
allowed timeframe. The AAO will consider the record complete as presently constituted. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(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. 
On appeal, the petitioner simply states, in part: 
The Center Director has erroneously concluded that the beneficiary does not qualify 
as a Manger or Executive for EB-1 purposes. The decision is incorrect as a matter of 
law; is against the weight of substantial evidence; and fails to give proper and 
complete consideration to all of the evidence petitioner submitted in response to the 
Request for Evidence. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms 
the denial of the petition. 
Neither counsel nor the petitioner has specifically identified an erroneous conclusion of law or 
statement of fact on the part of the director as a basis for the appeal. The petitioner's general 
objections to the denial of the petition, without specifically identifying any errors on the part of the 
director, are simply insufficient to overcome the conclusions the director reached based on the 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
evidence submitted by the petitioner. As no erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact has 
been specifically identified and as no additional evidence is presented on appeal to overcome the 
decision of the director, the appeal will be summarily dismissed in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 
103.3(a)(l)(v). 
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. Here, the petitioner has not met that 
burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.