dismissed EB-1C Case: Dental Supplies

FILE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alie~ 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative A1 
the office that originally decided your case. 
*~obert P. Wiemann, ~irecdr 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
e: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: ; -*) 
14 
Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
lmigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C) 
eals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
ny further inquiry must be made to that office. 
/Administrative Appeals Office 
4 
L 
SRC 03 054 52104 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition for an employment-based visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. I 
The petitioner states that it is a dental lab ar)d supplies company. It seeks to employ the beneficiary in the 
United States as its president and managing director, pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(C). ~ 
The director denied the petition concluding tpt the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary would 
be employed under the immigrant petition in a primarily managerial or executive capacity, or that the 
petitioning organization has the ability to p y the beneficiary the proffered weekly wage of approximately 
$692.00. "r 
On the Form I-290B appeal, counsel states: ~ 
Examiner indicated ision was made on a contradiction and lack of 
documentation to support the The petitioner will provide the missing documentation 
so that the issues raised ly addressed. Since the issues were raised only in the 
denial, the petitioner has y had a change [sic] to rebuttal or explanation. 
Counsel further states that a brief or evidenc would be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. The appeal 
was filed on March 1, 2004. As of this dat , the AAO has received nothing further and the record will be 
considered complete. ! I 
To establish eligibility under section of the Act, the petitioner must meet certain criteria. 
Specifically, within three years application for admission into the United States, a 
firm, corporation, or other or subsidiary thereof, must have employed the 
beneficiary for one must seek to continue rendering his or her 
services to the thereof in a managerial or executive 
capacity. 
A United States employer may file a on Form 1-140 for classification of an alien under section 
203(b)(l)(C) of the Act as a or manager. No labor certification is required for his 
classification. The States must furnish a job offer in the form of a 
statement which in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity. Such a to be performed by the alien. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the direcjor's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v) state, (in pertinent part: 
An officer to whom an appeal is summarily dismiss any appeal when the party 
concerned fails to identify erroneous conclusion of law or statement of 
fact for the appeal. 
SRC 03 054 52104 
Page 3 .I 
Inasmuch as counsel has failed to identify spdcifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in 
this proceeding, the appeal must be sumrnarilf dismissed. 
Furthermore, the appeal may be rejected as udtirnely filed. 
In order to properly file an appeal, the regul tion at 8 C.F.R. 3 103.3(a)(2)(i) provides that the affected party 
must file the complete appeal within 30 day after service of the unfavorable decision. If the decision was 1 mailed, the appeal must be filed within 33 da9s. See 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5a(b). 
The record indicates that the director issued the decision on January 23, 2004. It is noted that the director 
properly gave notice to the petitioner that it 33 days to file the appeal. Although counsel dated the appeal 
February 25, 2004, it was received by and Immigration Services (CIS) on March 1, 2004, or 38 
days after the decision was issued. appeal was untimely filed. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of pr ving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily disnbssed.