dismissed EB-1C Case: Computer Networking

idatipy~dabdelefedfo 
pevent clearly unwanantsd 
hvoion of -1 privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 05 144 51501 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 0 1 2006 
IN RE: 
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 1 153(b)(l)(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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 05 144 51501 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service Center. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
The petitioner was established in 1999 in the state of California. The petitioner is engaged in the business of 
setting up computer networks and trading computer hardware and software. It seeks to employ the 
beneficiary permanently as its chief executive officer. 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 1 153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. The director 
denied the petition based on two separate grounds of ineligibility: 1) the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity; and 2) the petitioner failed to provide 
credible, consistent evidence to establish that it has a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign 
employer. 
Although the beneficiary submitted an appeal on behalf of the petitioner, she failed to address the first ground 
of ineligibility. The beneficiary primarily discusses the continued development of the petitioning 
organization and presents a variety of documentation showing changes that have occurred since the petitioner 
filed the most recent Form 1-140.' However, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a 
petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new 
set of facts. Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971). Therefore, any business ventures that 
took place or new employees that may have been hired after the Form 1-140 was filed cannot be considered 
for the purpose of determining the petitioner's eligibility for the benefit sought in the instant matter. Thus, if 
the record shows that the petitioner's organization consisted of four employees at the time the Form 1-140 was 
filed, the petitioner has the burden of establishing that the beneficiary would have been performing primarily 
managerial or executive duties based on the organizational composition it had in place at that time. None of 
the statements made by the beneficiary on appeal suggest that the petitioner had such a capability. 
Furthermore, while the beneficiary acknowledges the director's adverse findings with regard to documentation 
concerning its ownership, merely disputing such findings and claiming that the inconsistencies were the result 
of an attorney's error does not amount to the independent objective evidence that is necessary to resolve the 
significant discrepancies discussed in the denial. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 15 8, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter 
of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 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. 8 1361. Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify 
I In the addendum to the petitioner's Form 1-140, the petitioner admitted to filing two prior Form 1-140 immigrant 
petitions, both of which were denied. 
WAC 05 144 51501 
Page 3 
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.