dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management

· d a ieleted. G 
identifytng at unwarranl.eO 
Ptevent dearly __ I ptivac~ 
~on of persOllGl 
pUBLlCCOPY 
FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. DepartmeDt 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 
Date: MAR 1 5 lOi! 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(I)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 8 U.S.C § J I 53(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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 in 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 CF.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 CF.R. § 103.5(a)(J)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.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 filed a Form 1·140 based on the claim that it is a corporate entity that seeks to employ the 
beneficiary as its director/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)(I)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. The director denied the petition 
based on four independent grounds of ineligibility and additionally entered a finding of fraud or 
misrepresentation pursuant to section 212(a)(6) of the Act. With regard to the issues of ineligibility, the 
director made the following findings: I) the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed 
abroad in a qualitying managerial or executive capacity; 2) the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a qualitying managerial or executive capacity; 3) the 
petitioner failed to establish that it had been doing business for one year prior to the filing of the Form 1·140; 
and 4) the petitioner failed to establish that the foreign entity where the beneficiary was allegedly employed 
prior to his entry to the United States continues to do business. 
Following the director's adverse decision, an appeal was filed in which counsel stated that he needed 
additional time in order to get acquainted with the facts of the case and submit additional documentation. 
Counsel indicated on the Form 1·290B that an additional 90 days was needed to gather the necessary 
documentation. The AAO notes that the Form 1-290B was received at the Texas Service Center on April 6, 
2006. To date, however, nearly five years since the appeal was filed, the record has not been supplemented 
with any additional evidence or information. Accordingly, the record will be considered complete as 
currently constituted. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(I)(v) states, in pertinent part: 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party 
concerned fails to identity 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 identity 
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.