dismissed EB-1C Case: Consulting

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLlCCOPY 
DATE: SEP 0 6 2012 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
u. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant 
to Section 203(b)(I)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen 
in accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www,uscls,gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will 
be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner is a consulting company, and 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)(1 )(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. § I I 53(b)(1 l(c), as a multinational executive or manager. 
The director denied the immigrant petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that 
the beneficiary's employment abroad was within a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, and the 
petitioner failed to establish that it would employ the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On May 20,2011, the petitioner submitted the Form I-290B to appeal the director's denial. The 
petitioner marked the box at part two ofthe Form I-290B to indicate that no supplemental brief 
and/or additional evidence will be submitted. Thus, the AAO deems the record complete and 
ready for adjudication. 
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. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v). 
The petitioner fails to identifY any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the 
appeal. On the Form I-290B, the petitioner reiterates the definition of executive capacity and 
contends that the beneficiary "has had a key role in the developmental phase of our 
organization." The petitioner failed to provide any additional evidence to corroborate that claim 
and overcome the director's concerns. 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. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972». 
As no additional evidence is presented on appeal to overcome the decision of the director, the 
appeal will be summarily dismissed in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v). 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 ofthe Act, 
8 U.S.c. § 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.