dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwalT~ted 
invasion of personal pnvacy 
PUBLlCCOPY 
DATE: JUL 0 2 2012 
INRE: 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 
PETITION: Immif,'fant 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 in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen 
in accordance with the instructions on Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to 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.uscis.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 summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner is a Florida corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its Executive Vice 
President. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classity 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. § IIS3(b)(1)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
On September 29, 2010, the director denied the immigrant petition for the following grounds: 
(1) failure to establish the existence of a qualitying relationship; and, (2) failure to establish that 
the beneficiary's proposed employment with the U.S. entity would be within a qualitying 
managerial or executive capacity. 
On November I, 2010, counsel for the petitioner submitted the Form 1-2908 to appeal the 
director's denial. The petitioner marked the box at part two ofthe Form 1-2908 to indicate that a 
brief and/or additional evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. The AAO 
never received a brief and/or additional evidence in support ofthe appeal. Thus, the AAO deems 
the record complete as currently constituted. 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party 
concerned fails to identity specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for 
the appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v). 
In regards to the director's conclusion that the petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence to 
show the beneficiary's eligibility for the immigrant petition, counsel for the petitioner fails to 
identity any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. As no additional 
evidence is presented on appeal to overcome the decision of the director, the appeal will be 
summarily dismissed in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.c. § 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.