dismissed EB-1C Case: Finance

(b)(6)
DATE : 
DEC 2 ~ 2013 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE : TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigrati on Ser vices 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massac husett s Ave. N.W. , MS 2090 
Wa shingt on, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE : 
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 : 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case . 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions . If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision . Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
l/fL~ ~onRo~~ 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the preference visa petition. The matter is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed . 
The petitioner is a Florida limited liability company that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its chief financial 
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. § ll53(b)(l)(C), 
as a multinational executive or manager. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish: (I) that the beneficiary 
would be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity; and (2) that it has a 
qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's former employer abroad. 
On the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, counsel restates the grounds for denial and contends that 
the director 's decision is not supported by the evidence previously submitted. Counsel marked Box A on the 
Form I-290B to indicate that he was submitting a brief and/or additional evidence in support of the appeal. A 
review of the record shows that the supporting evidence includes duplicates of documents that had been 
previously submitted in support of the Form I-140 and in response to the request for evidence. The duplicate 
documents were not accompanied by any further statement from counsel explaining specifically why these 
documents were being submitted and how, if at all, such documents supported counsel's claim on appeal. 
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 patty 
concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact 
for the appeal. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and will affirm the denial of the petition. The 
petitioner has not specifically identified an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact on the part of the 
director as a basis for the appeal. Counsel's general objections to the denial of the petition , without 
specifically identifying any specific errors on the part of the director, are simply insufficient to overcome the 
well-founded conclusions the director reached based on the evidence submitted by the petitioner. The 
assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); 
Matter Of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramir ez-Sanchez, l7 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 
1980). Therefore , the appeal will 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. 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 .