dismissed EB-1C Case: Clothing Retail

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Oflce ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
r data delzteed to 
iderrti~yl 
c\ear\y urikvafla*ied U.S. Citizenship 
n,vp,a.;l\ privacy and Immigration 
wasion of r-A' 
 PUBLIC copy 
Services 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
LIN 07 055 5103 1 
 'JUL 0 8 2009 
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 1 1 53(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. 5 103.5 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, as required by 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
cting Chief 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 is a Delaware corporation that operates as a clothing retailer. It 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)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 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's proposed position with the U.S. petitioner primarily 
consists of duties within a qualifying capacity and indicates that a brief and/or additional information 
would be submitted within 30 days in support of the appeal. On June 30, 2009, the AAO reviewed 
the record of proceeding and found that no additional evidence or information had been submitted 
since the appeal was filed on May 7, 2008. Accordingly, the record will be considered complete as 
currently constituted. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 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. 5 1361. Inasmuch as counsel for 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.