dismissed EB-1C Case: Finance And Real Estate Investment

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.; Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 03 06 1 55994 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUL 1 8 2005 
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. 5 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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 061 55994 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service Center. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
The petitioner was established in 1999 in the state of Arizona and is engaged in financial and real estate 
investment. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its president and chief executive 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. 8 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational 
executive or manager. The director denied the petition based on the determination that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On September 16, 2004, counsel, on behalf of the petitioner, filed an appeal disputing the director's findings. 
Counsel states that Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) has granted a number of the petitioner's 1-129 
nonimmigrant petitions and asserts that such actions are "incongruous" with the current decision to deny the 
immigrant petition. However, the director's decision does not indicate whether he reviewed the prior 
approvals of the other nonimmigrant petitions. The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions 
where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. 
See, e.g. Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm. 1988). It would be 
absurd to suggest that CIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. 
Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a court 
of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the nonimmigrant petitions on 
behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service 
center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), afyd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 
2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). Therefore, counsel's reliance on prior approvals of the petitioner's 
nonimmigrant visa petitions as an accurate indicator of the outcome in this matter is unreasonable. 
Although counsel indicated on the petitioner's Form I-290B that an appellate brief would be submitted within 
30 days of filing, a brief has not been located in the record of proceeding. Accordingly, the AAO sent the 
petitioner's most recent attorney of record a fax indicating that an appellate brief has not been located. 
Counsel was given the opportunity to resubmit a copy of the appellate brief, assuming that a brief had been 
originally submitted within the initial 30-day period. To date, however, there is no indication that counsel has 
made any effort to communicate with the AAO regarding the petitioner's appellate brief. Accordingly, the 
record will be considered complete as currently constituted. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligbility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1361. Inasmuch as counsel 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. 
WAC 03 061 55994 
Page 3 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.