dismissed EB-1C Case: Fashion Watches

identi- daEa deleted to 
prevent cleixly unwarranted 
invasion of mnal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of £lomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
EAC 04 125 52005 
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. 3 1153(b)(l)(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. 
Akd@i obert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the employment-based petition. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner filed the instant immigrant petition to classify the beneficiary as a multinational manager or 
executive pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
tj 1153(b)(l)(C). The petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of 
New York that is engaged in the import, export and manufacture of fashion watches. The petitioner seeks to 
employ the beneficiary as its marketing director. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary 
would be employed by the United States entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
On Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal, the petitioner states: 
The Service Center did not consider the evidence and erroneously dismissed the petition. We 
will submit detailed evidence and [a] brief within 30 days. 
In a subsequent letter dated March 29, 2006, the petitioner claims ineffective assistance of counsel, stating 
that counsel's "numerous mistakes" resulted in a "weak" case and an improper review of the record by 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS). The petitioner states: 
Under these circumstances we request you to kindly treat our case in [a] fair and favorable 
way and approve our petition as otherwise it will cause us great hardship to closed [sic] down 
the company which is stable, growing, solvent and able to meet all [ofJ its future obligations. 
We had even interviewed lots of candidates but had not yet filled them because meanwhile 
INS has send [sic] us [a] denial. 
The petitioner did not discuss the director's finding with respect to the beneficiary's non-managerial and non- 
executive employment in the United States entity. 
To establish eligibility under section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act, the petitioner must meet certain criteria. 
Specifically, within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, a 
firm, corporation, or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof, must have employed the 
beneficiary for one continuous year. Furthermore, the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States to 
continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial 
or executive capacity. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. The 
petitioner's general objection that CIS improperly reviewed the file is simply insufficient to overcome the 
well-founded and logical conclusions of the director. There is no evidence that the director based his denial 
on an improper review of the record. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 
1972)). 
Page 3 
Additionally, any appeal or motion based upon a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires that: (1) 
the claim be supported by an affidavit of the allegedly aggrieved respondent setting forth in detail the 
agreement that was entered into with counsel with respect to the actions to be taken and what representations 
counsel did or did not make to the respondent in this regard, (2) counsel whose integrity or competence is 
being impugned be informed of the allegations leveled against him and be given an opportunity to respond, 
and (3) the appeal or motion reflect whether a complaint has been filed with appropriate disciplinary 
authorities with respect to any violation of counsel's ethical or legal responsibilities, and if not, why not. 
Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), afd, 857 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1988). In the instant matter, the 
petitioner's blanket claim of ineffective assistance of counsel does not satisfy the above-noted requirements. 
Again, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sof$ci, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(l)(v) state, 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. 
Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of 
fact in this proceeding, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
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. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.