dismissed EB-1C Case: Freight Forwarding

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave.. N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: JUL 1 1 2005 
SRC 02 274 52193 
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. 
4A~obert P. ~iemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based petition. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner claims it was organized in the State of Florida in June 1991. It claims it is engaged in the 
freight forwarding and cargo business. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its president. 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 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational 
executive or' manager. 
The director determined that the petitioner had not submitted sufficient evidence to establish: (1) a qualifying 
relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer; (2) that the beneficiary would be employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity for the United States entity; or, (3) that the beneficiary had been employed 
in a managerial or executive capacity with the foreign entity for one year prior to her entry into the United 
States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. §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." 
On the Form I-290B Notice of Appeal, filed on March 30, 2004, counsel for the petitioner indicated that a 
separate brief andlor evidence was being submitted with the Form I-290B. The statement on the appeal form 
reads: "See Attached Documents." Counsel does not submit a brief. 
Counsel attaches: (1) Stock certificate 00 showing the petitioner had issued 5 1 on July 5, 
1991; (2) Stock certificate 02 showing the petitioner had issued 20 shares to 
2000, the stock certificate also bears a notation that these shares had been transferred from the original issue to 
he back of the stock certificate also bears a notation that the 20 shares had been transferred to 
on November 15,2001 for consideration received; (3) Stock certificate 03 showing the petitioner 
to Ayrnara Sucre on August 15, 2000, the stock certificate also bears a notation that these 
shares had been transferred from the original issue to (4) Stock certificate 04 showing the 
petitioner had issued 31 shares toon August 15, 2000, the stock certificate bears the notation 
original 01, the back of the stock certificate also bears a notation that the 31 shares had been transferred to 
Aymara Sucre on November 15,200 1; (5) the foreign entity's organizational chart; (6) a list of the foreign entity's 
employees and their job descriptions; (7) the petitioner's organizational chart; (8) the petitioner's employees and 
their job descriptions; and, (9) the beneficiary's resume and brief information regarding two of the petitioner's 
employees. 
On the issue of qualifying relationship, the AAO observes that prior to the documents submitted on appeal, 
the record contained a stock certificate 04 showing the petitioner had issued 100 shares to Ameripack Service 
DE Venezuela, C.A. on June 1 1, 199 1. Neither counsel nor the petitioner explains the inconsistency of this 
stock certificate with the stock certificate 04 submitted on appeal. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to 
resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or 
\ 
reconcile sucb inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Further, neither counsel nor the petitioner identifies specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement 
of fact on the issue of qualifying relationship as the basis of the appeal. 
Finally, on the issue of the beneficiary's managerial or executive capacity for the foreign entity and for the 
petitioner, the documents submitted on appeal had been previously submitted. Neither counsel nor the 
petitioner explains or otherwise identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact as a 
basis for the appeal on these issues. 
Inasmuch as a specific erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact has not been identified, the regulations 
mandate the summary dismissal of 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. 4 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.