dismissed EB-1C Case: Flooring Retail And Installation

DATE: OCT 03 201Z 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
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)(I)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § I I 53(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of$630. The specific 
requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion directly with 
the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 30 days of the 
decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
PerryRhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is engaged in retail sales and installation of flooring. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its 
President and Executive Manager. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an 
employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(1 )(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b )(1 )(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
The director denied the petition on May 19, 20 II, concluding that: (1) the petitioner failed to establish that it has 
a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity that employed the beneficiary abroad, (2) the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary's employment abroad was within a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, 
and (3) the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary's proposed employment with the U.S. entity would 
be within a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
The director also found that the petitioner failed to provide an organizational chart or the beneficiary's job duties 
at the foreign company as requested, leaving the director unable to determine if the beneficiary supervised the 
work of other managerial or professional employees. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded 
the appeal to the AAO for review. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(I) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
* * * 
(C) Certain Multinational Executives and Managers. -- An alien is described in 
this subparagraph if the alien, in the 3 years preceding the time of the alien's 
application for classification and admission into the United States under this 
subparagraph, has been employed for at least I year by a firm or corporation or 
other legal entity or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof and who seeks to enter the 
United States in order to continue to render services to the same employer or to 
a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial or executive. 
The language of the statute is specific in limiting this provision to only those executives and managers who have 
previously worked for a firm, corporation or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary of that entity, and 
who are corning to the United States to work for the same entity, or its affiliate or subsidiary. 
A United States employer may file a petition on Form 1-140 for classification of an alien under section 
203(b)(I)(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. No labor certification is required for this 
classification. The prospective employer in the United States must furnish a job offer in the form of a statement 
which indicates that the alien is to be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. Such 
a statement must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the alien. 
Page 3 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner received a Request for Evidence (RFE) from the 
director that required a response within 30 days. Counsel contends that it requested additional time to respond 
to the RFE given that the timeframe was during the holidays and the petitioner needed more time to obtain 
documents from abroad that would also need to be translated. Counsel contends that the petitioner "should be 
provided with proper and reasonable timeframe in which to respond to government requests in order to facilitate 
the processing of the case." Counsel requests that the "denial decision be reversed, or in the alternative the case 
be remanded to the Service to be re-opened with the Petitioner be afforded the proper response time to respond 
with requested documents." 
As noted by counsel on appeal, the Service is not required to allow a certain amount of days to respond to a 
request for evidence. The regulations do not provide a minimum response time, and only provides a maximum 
response time. Thus, the director has discretion to determine the minimum response time for the RFE. In 
addition, the Service will not grant additional time to respond to a request for evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b)(8)(iv) slates: 
A request for evidence or notice of intent to deny will be communicated by regular or electronic 
mail and will specify the type of evidence required, and whether initial evidence or additional 
evidence is required, or the bases for the proposed denial sufficient to give the applicant or 
petitioner adequate notice and sufficient information to respond. The request for evidence or 
notice of intent to deny will indicate the deadline for response, but in no case shall the maximum 
response period provided in a request for evidence exceed twelve weeks, nor shall the maximum 
response time provided in a notice of intent to deny exceed thirty days. Additional time to 
respond to a request for evidence or notice of intent to deny may not be granted. 
On December 6, 2010, the director put the petitioner on notice of the required evidence and gave the petitioner a 
reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the visa petition was adjudicated. See 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b )(8). On appeal, counsel states that "the Service precluded the Petitioner from being able to fully 
respond to the RFE," and "the Petitioner was forced to respond to the RFE with only a partial response on 
January 6, 20 II." The petitioner failed to provide all of the requested evidence. The director denied the 
petition, in part, because the petitioner failed to submit the requested evidence. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(viii) states that the director may request additional evidence in 
appropriate cases. Although specifically requested by the director, the petitioner did not provide the requested 
evidence. The petitioner's failure to submit this information cannot be excused. The failure to submit requested 
evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. See 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.2(b)(14). The director appropriately denied the petition, in part, for failure to submit requested evidence. 
Where, as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an 
opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal. 
See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 
1988). If the petitioner had wanted the requested evidence to be considered, it should have submitted the 
documents in response to the director's request for evidence. Id. Under the circumstances, the AAO need not 
and would not consider the sufficiency of the evidence had it been submitted on appeal. Consequently, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
Page 4 
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. § 136 \. Due to the failure to provide the requested evidence, the 
petitioner has not met its burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.