dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrarive Aaoeals MS 2090 
. . 
1 tefitfl 
washmiton, DC 20529-2090 
rta 8e.e 
idenfif.jin 5 6 , LJ k17G T~T ,-+Y 1-c a 
 U.S. Citizenship 
~!ex:i: :\ re- 
i9vasion Of ;ace~:d p'~ v I.-'Y 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC CZ)IPJ* 
d"4 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
 AUG Q 4 2009 
LIN 07 18 1 52652 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1153(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 or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider, as required by 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
+3+. 
John F. Grissom 
 +' 
Acting Chief Administrative Appeals Office 
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 limited liability company organized in the State of Georgia. It seeks to employ 
the beneficiary as its "Managing DirectorIFunction ManagerICEO." Accordingly, the petitioner 
endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(l)(C), as a 
multinational executive or manager. The director denied the petition based on the determination that 
the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive 
capacity. 
On appeal, counsel makes broad statements, generally asserting that the director's decision was 
erroneous, and suggests that the adverse decision is a direct indication that prior submissions, 
including evidence and a legal memorandum, were erroneously overlooked. Counsel asserts that a 
thorough analysis of previously submitted evidence and information would have resulted in the 
director's approval of the instant petition. The AAO notes, however, that counsel fails to specify 
which of the petitioner's submissions or arguments in the previously submitted legal memorandum 
point to the director's alleged error. 
Counsel also indicates that a brief andlor additional information would be submitted within 30 days 
in support of the appeal. On July 8, 2009, the AAO reviewed the record of proceeding and found 
that no additional evidence or information had been submitted since the appeal was filed on July 30, 
2008. Accordingly, the record will be considered complete as currently constituted. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(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 U.S.C. 5 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.