dismissed EB-1C Case: Consulting

identifying dafa deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privac~ 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. $103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider, as required by 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
%! 51C;v- 
John F. Grissom, Acting Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner claims to be a consulting business with two employees. It seeks to employ the 
beneficiary 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. 5 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
The director denied the petition based on two independent grounds of ineligibility: 1) the petitioner 
failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity; and 2) the petitioner failed to establish that it would employ the beneficiary in a managerial 
or executive capacity. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director's decision is erroneous, claiming that the beneficiary's 
duties are related to operational and/or policy management. Counsel also indicates that a brief 
and/or additional information would be submitted within 30 days in support of the appeal. On 
January 22,2009, the AAO reviewed the record of proceeding and found that no additional evidence 
or information had been submitted to the AAO since the appeal was filed on January 10,2008.~ 
Accordingly, the AAO faxed counsel a notice allowing an additional five days in which to provide a 
brief andlor any information if the petitioner had previously submitted such information to this 
office. The AAO clearly stated that this was not meant to allow the petitioner additional time in 
which to provide new information that had not been previously submitted to the AAO. Rather, this 
was merely an attempt to allow the petitioner to provide information that may have been submitted 
and gotten detached from the record of proceeding. On January 26, 2009, counsel responded to the 
AAO's facsimile, submitting evidence that a brief and supporting documentation was submitted in 
support of the appeal on February 8,2008. 
Upon review of this recently submitted material, the AAO notes that this brief and supporting 
documentation was submitted directly to the Nebraska Service Center, not the AAO. As indicated 
above, the regulations require this separately filed brief to have been submitted directly to the AAO, 
not the service center. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(viii). Accordingly, the copy of the previously 
submitted brief and supporting documentation may not be considered, and the record will be 
considered complete as constituted on the date the appeal was filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(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. 5 1361. Inasmuch as counsel has failed to 
I 
 As required by 8 C.F.R. 
 103.3(a)(2)(viii), if a brief is not filed together with the Form I-290B, it shall be submitted 
directly to the AAO with the time permitted by that office. 
identi@ 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.