dismissed EB-1C Case: Footwear

U.S. Department of IIonieland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER 
WAC 96 091 50591 
  date:^^^ 1 9 2008 
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. fj 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)(l)(i). 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was initially approved on March 1, 1996. Upon further 
review by the Director, California Service Center, it was determined that approval was not warranted 
and a notice of intent to revoke was issued. The approval was ultimately revoked by the director in a 
decision dated January 30, 2008. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 
(AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner sought to employ the beneficiary as the marketing manager of its footwear division. 
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. 
tj 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. The director revoked the approval of the 
petitioner's Form 1-140 based on the determination that the petitioner failed to respond to the 
November 22, 2005 notice of intent to revoke (NOIR), which enumerated the following grounds of 
ineligibility: 1) the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a 
qualifying managerial or executive capacity; and 2) the petitioner failed to establish that it has 
employed and would employ the beneficiary in a qualif4ling managerial or executive capacity. The 
director also noted the beneficiary's brief visits to the United States during her status as an L-1A 
nonimmigrant, indicating that the beneficiary does not intend to reside in the United States 
permanently despite the petitioner's filing of the Form 1-140 in an attempt to obtain a permanent visa 
classification on behalf of the beneficiary. 
On appeal, counsel does not address the grounds for revocation that were previously cited in the 
NOR. However, counsel asserts that the petitioner did respond to the NOIR and indicates that a 
supporting brief andlor additional information would be submitted within 30 days in support of the 
appeal. No evidence was provided with the appeal that corroborates counsel's claim that a response 
to the NOIR was actually submitted. It is noted that going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
On December 11, 2008, the AAO reviewed the record of proceeding and found that no additional 
evidence or information had been submitted since the appeal was filed on February 11, 2008. 
Accordingly, the AAO faxed the petitioner a notice allowing an additional five days in which to 
provide a brief and/or any information lf the petitioner had previously submitted such information. 
The AAO clearly stated that this was not meant to allow the petitioner additional time in which to 
provide new information that had not been previously submitted. Rather, this was merely an attempt 
to allow the petitioner to provide information that may have been submitted and gotten detached 
from the record of proceeding. To date, however, counsel has not responded to the AAO's facsimile. 
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. 
Page 3 
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 counsel, on behalf of the 
petitioner, has failed to identify specifically an actual 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.