dismissed EB-1C Case: Construction

idmti@ing data deleted to 
prevent ckly ~i~~~manted 
kWt&0kl @f ~J"WF~Q~ FVWy 
U.S. Department of Ifomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: () 7 2007 
EAC 04 137 50015 
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) 
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. 
i. +-- ) &- 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonirnrnigrant visa petition. The matter 
subsequently came before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO reviewed the 
record and remanded the matter back to the director for further consideration. The director denied the petition 
due to abandonment and certified the decision to the AAO for review. The AAO will affirm the director's 
decision. 
The petitioner was established in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and is engaged in construction. It seeks 
to employ the beneficiary as its general manager. 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. 9 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
On January 6, 2005, the director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that it 
would employ the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. The petitioner subsequently appealed 
the director's decision disputing the propriety of the director's decision. 
After reviewing the record in its entirety, the AAO specifically cited the initial evidence that was missing 
from the instant record and concluded that such missing initial evidence warranted the issuance of a request 
for additional evidence (RFE). See 8 C.F.R. 6 103.2(b)(8). Accordingly, the case was remanded with 
specific instructions to issue an RFE in an effort to elicit the evidence and information necessary in order to 
make a determination as to the petitioner's eligibility. 
In response, the director complied with the AAO's instructions by properly issuing an RFE on March 29, 
2006. The petitioner was allowed the regulatory 12 weeks in which to provide a response. Based on the 
petitioner's failure to provide a response to the RFE, the director issued a denial based on abandonment, 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 6 103.2(b)(13). 
The director correctly informed the petitioner that no appeal would lie from the decision. The AAO will 
affirm the director's decision to deny the petition based on abandonment. 
ORDER: 
 The director's decision dated September 18, 2006 is affirmed.