dismissed EB-1C Case: Construction

mdrtadeldto 
pawent clearly unwarranted 
- Lmrim of personal 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: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN' 0 1 2006 
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) 
FOREIGN ATTORNEY 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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for an immigrant visa. The matter 
is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected as improperly 
filed. 
The petitioner appears to be an organization incorporated in the State of New ~erse~.' It claims to engage in 
providing construction specialty products. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its accountant. Accordingly, it 
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. fj 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
The director denied the petition based on the petitioner's failure to establish the following: (1) the beneficiary 
was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity; (2) the beneficiary will be employed in the 
United States in a managerial or executive capacity; (3) the petitioner is the same employer or a subsidiary or 
affiliate of the foreign entity which employed the beneficiary overseas; (4) the beneficiary has at least one 
year of full-time employment with a qualifying organization abroad within the three-year period prior to the 
petition's filing; or (5) the petitioner has been doing business for at least one year prior to the filing of the 
petition. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) regulations specifically limit the filing of an appeal to an 
affected party (the person or entity with legal standing) andlor to the party's attorney or representative 
authorized pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 292. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(B). In this matter, although the petition 
is accompanied by a Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance by an Attorney or Representative, the 
claimed attorneylrepresentative has not established that he or she is a licensed attorney or an accredited 
representative authorized to undertake representations on the petitioner's behalf. See 8 C.F.R. 5 292.1. In 
fact, the individual only indicates on Form G-28 that he or she is a member of the High Court of Maharashtra 
and Goa. Accordingly, the foreign attorney's appearance will not be recognized, and the appeal filed by the 
unauthorized counsel in this matter must be considered as improperly filed. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(2). 
As the appeal was not properly filed, it will be rejected. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(l). 
Even if the AAO were to accept the appeal as properly filed, on the Form I-290B appeal, filed on January 23, 
2004, counsel simply asserts: "Being [alggrieved by the decision to deny the petition, both in fact & [llaw." 
In the statement submitted on appeal, the petitioner further states in pertinent part: 
Being aggrieved by the said decision the petitioner has preferred this appeal. 
We propose to furnish a detailed brief in support of our contentions. In order to respond to 
the issues raised, we need time for 90 days to complete and submit the brief to you for your 
consideration. 
1 It is noted for the record that no evidence was provided regarding the legal existence of the petitioner. 
Page 3 
Failing to receive a brief, the AAO sent a fax to counsel on September 16. 2005, notifying him or her that no 
brief or additional evidence was ever received and requesting a copy of any documents previously submitted 
in support of the appeal. As of the date of this decision, no response was ever received from counsel. 
To establish eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act, the petitioner must meet certain criteria. 
Specifically, within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, a 
firm, corporation, or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof, must have employed the beneficiary 
for one continuous year. Furthermore, the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States temporarily to 
continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial, 
executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v) state, 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. 
Inasmuch as the unauthorized counsel for the petitioner has failed to identify specifically an erroneous 
conclusion of law or a statement of fact in this proceeding, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
Finally, regarding counsel's request for oral argument, the regulations provide that the "affected party" must 
explain in writing why oral argument is necessary. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3@)(1). Furthermore, CIS has the sole 
authority to grant or deny a request for oral argument and will grant an argument only in cases involving unique 
factors or issues of law that cannot be adequately addressed in writing. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3@). In this instance, 
counsel simply states that "[iln view of the issues involved and reasons indicated for denial, we in the interest of 
justice, strongly feel the need and therefore, request an opportunity for oral arguments." Even if counsel 
persuaded this office why he or she could not adequately address the issues in this matter in writing, as explained 
and for the reasons stated herein, counsel is not and does not represent an affected party in this proceeding. 
Therefore, the request for an oral argument fiom an unauthorized representative is not properly received and must 
be denied. 
Even if the appeal had been properly filed, the appeal would be summarily dismissed for the above stated 
reasons. 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. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.