dismissed EB-1C Case: Flower Distribution

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and lmmigration Services 
+ Ofice of Adm~n~strat~ve Appeals 
ww~g drta deleted to 
 Washington, DC 20529-2090 
'. 
Prevent clear1 y uwmted 
 U. S. Citizenship 
invasion of ptmonal privacy 
 and Immigration 
IN RE: 
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: 
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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider, as required by 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(I)(i). 
-fl* wb- 
John F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 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 and is in the business of importing, exporting, and 
distributing flowers. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its 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. 5 1 153(b)(l)(C), as 
a multinational executive or manager. 
The language of the decision indicates that the petition was denied based upon three independent 
grounds of ineligibility: 1) the beneficiary's ownership of the petitioning entity suggests a lack of 
the requisite business relationship between the beneficiary and the petitioner; 2) the petitioner failed 
to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity; and 3) the petitioner failed to establish that it would employ the beneficiary in a managerial 
or executive capacity. 
On the Form 1-1290, counsel checked box No. 2(b), indicating that a brief andlor additional 
information would be submitted within 30 days in support of the appeal. It is noted that the appeal 
was filed on April 10,2008. To date, more than 11 months since the appeal was filed, the record has 
not been supplemented with any further evidence or information. 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 eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely 
with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 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.