dismissed EB-1C Case: Corporate Management

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarr~ted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: SEP 0 7 2011 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: SELF -REPRESENTED 
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 by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must 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.uscis.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 Florida corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its chief executive. 
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. § 1153(b)(1)(C), as a 
multinational executive or manager. 
On September 3, 2009, the director denied the petition concluding that the beneficiary filed a skeletal petition 
without supporting evidence and petitioned on behalf of herself despite the fact that she is statutorily 
prohibited from self-petitioning. The director also concluded that the record lacks evidence establishing that 
the petitioner had been doing business in the United States for one year prior to filing this petition as required by 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5G)(3)(i)(D). 
On appeal, the beneficiary disputes the director's conclusion and states that a brief and/or additional 
information would be submitted within 30 days of the appeal. The beneficiary claims that she is "sending all 
corporate papers" and further states that she was previously unable to send the required documentation due to 
a family medical issue. Additionally, the beneficiary submits an employment reference letter of past 
employment in the United States as well as a notarized affidavit and letter, both signed by the beneficiary 
herself. Both statements indicate that the petitioner submitted supporting documents. The beneficiary'S 
statements did not, however, explain which documents specifically address the deficiencies that served as the 
grounds for denial of the Form 1-140. Additionally, with regard to the submission of further evidence and/or 
information in support of the appeal, the AAO notes that more than twenty months have passed since the 
appeal was filed and the record has not been supplemented with any additional evidence or information. 
Accordingly, the record will be considered complete as currently constituted. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(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. § 1361. Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify 
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.