dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
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: 
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. 
fj 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 or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
$ 103,5(a)(l)(i). 
John F. ~;issom, Acting thief 
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 claims to be a California corporation seeking 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)(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 asserts that the beneficiary directs the management of the petitioning entity and is 
ultimately responsible for determining how the petitioner will meet its target goals. Counsel further stated 
that a brief and/or additional information would be submitted within 30 days in support of the appeal. On 
November 4, 2008, the AAO reviewed the record of proceeding and found that no additional evidence or 
information had been submitted since the appeal was filed on February 11, 2008. Accordingly, the AAO 
faxed the petitioner's counsel of record a notice allowing an additional five days in which to provide a brief 
and/or any information ifthe petitioner had previously submitted such information. The AAO clearly stated 
that this was not meant to allow the petitioner additional time in which to provide new information that had 
not been previously submitted. Rather, this was merely an attempt to allow the petitioner to provide 
information that may have been submitted but was never matched with the record of proceeding. To date, 
however, the petitioner has not responded to the AAO's facsimile. 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 U.S.C. fj 1361. Inasmuch as counsel 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.