dismissed EB-1C Case: Finance

(b)(6)
DATE: JUM 1 9 20\5 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
FILE#: 
PETITION RECEIPT #: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service~ 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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 : 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form I-290B web page (www.uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing 
location, and other requiremen ts. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
Thank you, 
1 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska 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 multinational company that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its treasury manager. 
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. § 1153(b)(l)(C), as a 
multinational executive or manager. The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner was 
ineligible based on its failure to establish that it meets the following eligibility criteria: (1) the beneficiary 
would be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity; and (2) the 
beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal with supporting evidence intended to establish that the Form 
I-290B was timely filed. Although we find that the appeal was, in fact, properly filed, the petitioner 
submitted no evidence or information addressing the actual grounds for denial; nor did the petitioner actually 
dispute either or both grounds. As the petitioner marked Box 1(a) on the Form I-290B, indicating that a brief 
and/or additional evidence was attached to the appeal, the record will be considered complete as presently 
constituted. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v) states, inpertinent 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. 
The petitioner has not specifically identified any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact as a basis 
for the appeal. As noted, the petitioner did not provide a brief or additional evidence in support of the appeal 
despite indicating on the Form I-290B that it had done so. Moreover, the petitioner did not provide with its 
appeal a separate statement regarding the basis of the appeal, as instructed at Part 4 of the Form I-290B. A 
petitioner filing an appeal is required to provide a statement that specifically identifies an erroneous 
conclusion of law or fact in the decision being appealed. Here, the petitioner has made no reference or 
objection to the specific findings set forth in the director's decision . Therefore , consistent with 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(l)(v), 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; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
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. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.