dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management

(b)(6)
DATE:OCT 2 8 2013 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Admini strative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusett s Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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. § 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively . Any motion must be filed on aNotice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO .. 
Thank you, 
~6~ 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition. The matter is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed . 
The petitioner is a Texas corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its 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)(1)(C), as a multinational 
executive or manager. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to meet eligibility criteria that requires 
the petitioner to establish the following elements: (1) the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity; (2) the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity; (3) the petitioner had been doing business for one full year prior to filing 
the instant petition; (4) the petitioner had the ability to pay the beneficiary's proffered wage as of the date the 
petition was filed; and (5) the beneficiary's former foreign employer continues to do business. 
Although counsel submitted a properly executed Form I-290B Notice of Appeal indicating that the director's 
decision was being appealed, she did not dispute or address any of the director's numerous adverse findings. 
Rather, she indicated that a brief and/or additional information would be submitted within 30 days in support 
of the appeal. The record reflects that the petitioner did not file a brief or supplemental evidence within the 
allowed timeframe . 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 dismis s 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, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013) . 
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.