dismissed EB-1C Case: Diamond Import/Export

U.S. Department of £lomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Room 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
LIN 07 050 50040 
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. 6 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. 
4 Rpbert P. Wiem nn, Chief 
8 
dministrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based petition. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner is a corporation organized in the State of New York that engages in the business of importing 
and exporting diamonds. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its business development executive. 
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 (Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(C), as a 
multinational executive or manager. 
The director denied the petition, determining that the petitioner had not submitted sufficient evidence to 
establish that (I) the beneficiary has the requisite one year of executive/managerial experience abroad; (2) the 
beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the United States entity; (3) a 
qualifying relationship exists between the U.S. and foreign entities; or (4) the petitioner has the ability to pay 
the beneficiary the proffered annual wage. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $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." 
On the Form I-290B Notice of Appeal, filed on December 28, 2007, the petitioner indicated that a brief andlor 
evidence would be submitted within 30 days. In addition, in Part 3 of the Form I-290-B, where the petitioner is to 
state the basis for the appeal, the petitioner simply states: "A detailed brief will be submitted shortly." To date, 
careful review of the record reveals no subsequent submission; all other documentation in the record predates the 
issuance of the notice of decision. 
The petitioner has failed to identify an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in the director's decision 
as a basis for the appeal. Thus, the regulations mandate the summary dismissal of 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. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.