dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management

Identifying data deleted to 
prev~nt clearly unwarranted 
mvaslOn of personal privacy 
~ICCOP~ 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529·2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DatePCT 0 6 2010 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. § 1153(b)( 1 )(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. AlI 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 $585. 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, 
~ 1 Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
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 
summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner is a California 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)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(1 )(C), as a multinational executive or manager. The director denied the petition based on 
two independent grounds of ineligibility: 1) the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was 
employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity; and 2) the petitioner failed to 
establish that it would employ the beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
On May 26, 2009, the petitioner i filed an appeal seeking review of the director's decision. The 
petitioner resubmitted the job descriptions and organizational charts it submitted earlier in response 
to the director's request for additional evidence and stated that a brief and/or additional information 
would be submitted within 30 days of the appeal. To date, however, more than sixteen months 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)(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 V.S.c. § 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. 
I Although a Form G-28 was appended to the appeal and while the Form \-290B marked the box indicating that the 
appeal was being filed by the petitioner's attorney of record, counsel's information was not included on the Form \-2908. 
Therefore, even though the AAO acknowledges counsel's representation of the petitioner in the present matter, it appears 
that the appeal was filed directly by the petitioner.