dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management

, ... 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarr~nted 
invasion of personal pnvac} 
PUBLlCCOPY 
FILE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: 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 
Date: FEB 1 1 2011 
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, § IIS3(b)(1)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: SELF-REPRESENTED 
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,S(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.useis.gov 
Page 2 
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 rejected. 
The petitioner is a Florida corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its president/joint entrepreneur. 
Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classifY the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant 
to section 203(b)(I)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 u.s.c. § 1 1 53(b)(1)(C), as a 
multinational executive or manager. 
The director denied the petition based on the following four grounds of ineligibility: 1) the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifYing managerial or executive capacity; 2) the 
petitioner failed to establish that it has a qualifYing relationship with the beneficiary'S foreign employer; 3) the 
petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a qualifYing 
managerial or executive capacity; and 4) the petitioner failed to establish that it has the ability to pay the 
beneficiary's proffered wage. 
On appeal, the beneficiary states that he was unaware that required documents were missing and only became 
aware of the deficiency when the petition was denied. The AAO notes, however, that 8 C.F.R. § 
I03.2(b)(8)(ii) gives the director the discretionary authority to deny an application or petition for lack of 
initial evidence or for ineligibility without issuing any prior notices informing the petitioner of the intended 
denial. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § I03.3(a)(I)(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. § 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.