dismissed
EB-1C
dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management
Decision Summary
The appeal was rejected because it was not timely filed, having been submitted 34 days after the director's decision was issued. The AAO also noted that even if it had been timely, the appeal would have been summarily dismissed for failing to identify any specific erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact.
Criteria Discussed
Managerial Capacity Abroad Managerial Capacity In The U.S. Ability To Pay Proffered Wage Timely Filing Of Appeal
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
identifyingdatadeletedto preventcb y tmwarranted invasmii rsonalprivac) PUBLICCOPY U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity U. S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices AdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) 20MassachusettsAve.,N.W.,MS2090 Washington,DC 20529-2090 8 U.S.Citizenship and Immigration Services DATE: FEB 1 5 2012 OFFICE:TEXASSERVICECENTER IN RE: Petitioner: Beneficiary: PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor AlienWorkerasaMultinationalExecutiveor ManagerPursuant to Section203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C) ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER: INSTRUCTIONS: Enclosedpleasefind the decisionof the AdministrativeAppealsOffice in your case. All of the documentsrelatedtothismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Please beadvisedthatanyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadetothatoffice. Thank you, PerryRhew Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice www.uscis.gov Page2 DISCUSSION:Thepreferencevisa petitionwasdeniedby theDirector,TexasServiceCenter. The matteris nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)onappeal.Theappealwill berejected. Thepetitioneris a New York corporationthatseeksto employthebeneficiaryasits generalmanager. Accordingly,the petitionerendeavorsto classifythe beneficiaryas an employment-basedimmigrant pursuantto section 203(b)(1)(C)of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C),asamultinationalexecutiveormanager. OnJanuary29,2010,thedirectordeniedtheimmigrantpetitionfor thefollowinggrounds:(1) failureto establishthat the beneficiary'semploymentabroadwas within a qualifyingmanagerialor executive capacity;(2)failureto establishthatthebeneficiary'sproposedemploymentwith theU.S.entitywouldbe within a qualifyingmanagerialor executivecapacity;and(3) failureto establishtheability to pay the beneficiary'sprofferedwage. OnMarch4, 2010,counselfor thepetitionersubmittedtheFormI-290Bto appealthedirector'sdenial. Thepetitionermarkedtheboxatparttwo of theFormI-290Bto indicatethatthebrief and/oradditional evidencewill besubmittedto theAAO within 30days. TheAAO receiveda brief fromcounselonJune 24,2010. In orderto properlyfile anappeal,theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.3(a)(2)(i)providesthattheaffected partymustfile thecompleteappealwithin 30 daysof afterserviceof theunfavorabledecision.If the decisionwasmailed,theappealmustbefiledwithin 33days.See8C.F.R.§ 103.5a(b).Thedateof filing is notthedateof mailing,butthedateof actualreceipt,whichshallbestampedto showthetimeanddate of actualreceipt,if it is properlysigned,executed,andaccompaniedby thecorrectfee. See8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(i).For calculatingthedateof filing, theappealshallberegardedasproperlyfiled on the datethatit issostampedbytheservicecenterordistrictoffice. Counselfor thepetitionerfiledtheappeal 34daysafterthedirectorissuedhisdecision.Astheappealwasnottimelyfiled,it mustberejected.See 8C.F.R.§ 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(1).If theappealhadbeentimelyfiled,it wouldbesummarilydismissed. OntheFormI-290B,counselfor thepetitionerstatesthefollowing: The decision denying the petition, which sought classification of the beneficiary as a permanent employee of the appellant business entity. While the beneficiary of this petition is holding a similar position in entity. The decision doesalso not give credence of deferenceas caselaw requiresto specificbusinessnecessity. Appellantthrough documentaryevidenceseeksto establishthatthepositionfor whichpetition(1-140)was submittedis necessaryfor thefunctioningof thebusinessandthatthebeneficiaryis the mostsuitablecandidatefor thepositionandfurthermore,thebeneficiaryhasa proven trackrecordof performingall thefunctionsof theposition. In theappealbrief,counselfor thepetitionercontendsthattheI-140wasconcurrentlyfiledwith FormI- 485andsincetheI-140is still pendingonappeal,theI-485shouldnothavebeendeniedandthematter shouldbe"reopenedandthefile heldpending"untiltheAAO hasmadeadecision. Page3 An officerto whomanappealis takenshallsummarilydismissanyappealwhenthepartyconcernedfails to identify specifically any erroneousconclusion of law or statementof fact for the appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v). In regardsto thedirector'sconclusionthatthepetitionerfailedto submitsufficientevidenceto showthe beneficiary'seligibility for the immigrantpetition,counselfor the petitionerfails to identify any erroneousconclusionof lawor statementof factfor theappeal.Thepetitionerclaimedthattheimmigrant visapetitionshouldbegrantedbutdidnotprovideanyevidenceto corroboratethatclaim. Ontheappeal brief,counseldoesnotstateanyconcernswith thedirector'sdecisionbutinsteadstatesthattheI-485was erroneouslydeniedsincetheI-140is still pending.As no additionalevidenceis presentedon appealto overcomethe decisionof thedirector,theappealwouldhavebeensummarilydismissedin accordance with 8C.F.R.§ 103.3(a)(1)(v)if it hadbeentimelyfiled. The burdenof proof in theseproceedingsrestssolelywith the petitioner. Section291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361.Thepetitionerhasnotsustainedthatburden. ORDER: Theappealisrejected.
Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial
MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.
Avoid This in My Petition →No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.