dismissed
EB-1C
dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management
Decision Summary
The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner failed to address the reasons for the original denial of the Form I-140 petition. Instead of identifying an error of law or fact in the denial, the petitioner's appeal improperly focused on the beneficiary's Form I-485 adjustment of status application, a matter over which the AAO has no jurisdiction.
Criteria Discussed
Qualifying Managerial Or Executive Capacity Jurisdiction Of Aao Proper Grounds For Appeal
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
identifyingdatadeletedto preventclearlyunwarranted invasionof personalprivacy PUBLICCOPY U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices AdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) 20MassachusettsAve.N.W.,MS2090 Washington,DC 20529-2090 8 U.S.Citizenship andImmigration Services DATE: OFFICE:TEXASSERVICECENTER FILE: AUG092012 IN RE: Petitioner: Beneficiary: PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien WorkerasaMultinationalExecutiveor ManagerPursuantto Section203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ l 153(b)(1)(C) ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER: SELF-REPRESENTED INSTRUCTIONS: This isthedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOfficein yourcase.All documentshavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Anyfurtherinquirymustbemadetothatoffice. If you believethe law wasinappropriatelyappliedby us in reachingour decision,or you haveadditional informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile amotionto reconsideror a motionto reopenwith thefield officeor servicecenterthatoriginallydecidedyourcaseby filing aFormI-290B,Noticeof Appeal or Motion,with a feeof $630. Thespecificrequirementsfor filing sucha requestcanbefoundat 8 C.F.R. § 103.5.Do not file any motiondirectlywith the AAO. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i) requiresthatanymotionmustbefiledwithin30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto reconsideror reopen. Thankyou, PerryRhew Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice www.uscas.gov Page2 DISCUSSION:Thepreferencevisapetitionwasdeniedby theDirector,TexasServiceCenter.The matteris now beforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)on appeal.Theappealwill be summarilydismissed. The petitioner is a Delawarecorporationthat seeksto employ the beneficiaryas its president. Accordingly,thepetitionerendeavorsto classifythebeneficiaryasanemployment-basedimmigrant pursuantto section203(b)(1)(C)of the Immigrationand NationalityAct (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C),as a multinationalexecutiveor manager. The director deniedthe Form I-140 (Immigrant Petitionfor Alien Worker) after the petitionerfailed to establishthat the beneficiary would be employedin a qualifying managerialor executivecapacity. See8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(2) (definingmanagerialandexecutivecapacity). On June28,2010,thepetitionerfiled anappealseekingreviewof theFormI-485(Applicationto RegisterPermanentResidenceor Adjust Status). Specifically,the petitionerobjectedto the director'sfailureto converttheprincipalaliento thatof derivativebeneficiary.Thepetitionerstated thatthebeneficiary'srequestwasbasedontheapprovalsof thebeneficiary'sspouse'sFormI-140 and Form I-485, wherethe beneficiarywas listed as a derivativebeneficiary. The petitioner's appellatebrief and supportingevidencefocus entirely on the director's failure to act upon the beneficiary'srequestto convertthe basisof thebeneficiary'sFormI-485 from principalto that of a derivativebeneficiary. The petitionerneitheraddressednor acknowledgedthe basisfor the director'sdenialof thepetitioner'sFormI-140. In light of thefactthatthepetitioner'sappealaddressesonly thebeneficiary'sFormI-485rather thanthe denialof the petitioner'sFormI-140,the AAO pointsout that it hasnojurisdictionto considermattersconcerningthebeneficiary'sadjustmentof statusapplication.No right to appeal arisesfrom the denial of an applicationto adjust status. 8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(5). The matter discussedin thepetitioner'sappealdoesnotfall within theAAO'sjurisdiction. Additionally,theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 103.3(a)(1)(v)states,in pertinentpart: An officer to whomanappealis takenshallsummarilydismissanyappealwhenthe party concernedfails to identify specificallyany erroneousconclusionof law or statementof factfor theappeal. In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenof provingeligibility for thebenefitsoughtremainsentirely with thepetitioner. Section291of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361.Inasmuchasthepetitionerhasfailedto identifyspecificallyanerroneousconclusionof law or a statementof fact in this proceeding,the petitionerhasnotsustainedthatburden.Therefore,theappealwill besummarilydismissed. ORDER: Theappealis summarilydismissed.
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.