dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management

identity ins data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department 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 
fEB 2 4 2011 
Date: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § I 153(b)(1)(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 C.F.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 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(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 
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 Florida corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its chief executive officer of 
product and advertisement. 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 December 7,2009, the director denied the petition based on the determination that the petitioner failed to 
establish that it is a multinational entity that has a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer 
as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5G)(3)(i)(C). 
On appeal, counsel, on behalf of the petitioner, disputes the director's conclusion and states that a brief and/or 
additional information would be submitted within 30 days of the appeal. Counsel claims that the beneficiary 
meets the filing requirements and is "in possession of substantial supporting documentation" which 
establishes that the filing requirements have been satisfied. Counsel's statements did not, however, explain 
which documents specifically address the primary deficiency that served as the basis for the director's 
decision, i.e., the lack of evidence establishing a qualifying relationship between the petitioner and the 
beneficiary'S foreign employer. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5G)(2). Additionally, with regard to the submission of 
further evidence and/or information in support of the appeal, the AAO notes that more than thirteen months 
have passed since the appeal was filed and 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)(1)(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. § 136l. 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.