dismissed EB-1C Case: Construction

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
PUBLIC COPY 
identifyinp, data &let& to 
. - 
prevent clearly i~~-i~~mranted 
invasim of ~'g0na.l privacy 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: DEc 0 6 
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. fj 1 153(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. 
', --$-$ 
Robert P. W~emann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the immigrant 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 1 153(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 its propriety. 
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. 9 103.2(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. 9 103.2(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 March 29, 2006 will be affirmed.