dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management

identifying data deieted to 
preycat ci~i~ly unl- 8a;ranted 
invzsion ~f pci'xcd privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N. W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
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. 8 1153(b)(l)(C) 
IN 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 fkther inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
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 pursuant to 8 
C.F.R. $9 103.2(b)(15) and 103.3. 
The petitioner, a Florida corporation, endeavored to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based 
immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. 
On November 28, 2007, the director summarily denied the petition due to abandonment, because the 
petitioner failed to respond to a request for evidence by the date specified in the request, i.e., within four 
weeks. 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2@)(13). The director indicated in his decision that, while there is no right to an 
appeal from an abandonment denial, the petitioner may, inter alia, file a motion with Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (CIS). The official having jurisdiction over a motion is the official who made the latest 
decision in the proceeding, i.e., the Texas Service Center director. 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5(a)(ii). 
Nevertheless, on December 21, 2007, the petitioner filed a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, and 
indicated in Part 2 that it is "filing an appeal." The petitioner did not file a motion. However, as correctly 
noted by the director, the petitioner may not appeal a denial due to abandonment. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(15). 
Accordingly, the AAO must reject the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See 8 C.F.R. 4 103.3.' 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected. 
- - 
1 
It is noted that the petitioner could have filed a motion to reopen or reconsider with the Texas Service Center. 
However, as noted above, the petitioner did not file a motion -- it filed an appeal. Regardless, upon review, 
the petitioner's appeal would not have met the requirements of a motion to reopen or reconsider. "[A] motion 
to reopen must state the new facts to be provided in the reopened proceeding and be supported by affidavits or 
other documentary evidence." 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5(a)(2). "A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for 
reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on 
an incorrect application of law or [CIS] policy." 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5(a)(3). In this matter, the petitioner claims that 
it responded timely to the director's Request for Evidence. However, the petitioner neither enclosed a copy of its 
purported response nor submitted evidence of the Texas Service Center's claimed receipt of the response on 
December 3, 2007. Therefore, the petitioner did not submit any evidence for consideration on motion. The 
unsupported statements of counsel or a petitioner in a motion are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any 
evidentiary weight. See INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 188-89 n.6 (1984); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 
I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1980). The petitioner also did not cite to any pertinent precedent decisions establishing 
that the director's decision to deny the petition as abandoned was based on an incorrect application of law or 
policy.