dismissed EB-1C Case: Garment Manufacturing

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington. DC 20529 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clewh unwarranted 
invasion of pemal privacy 
B1 ~RLTC COPY 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
EAC 05 112 51335 
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. 3 1 153(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. 
' Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected. 
The petitioner is a garment manufacturer and distributor that seeks to classify the beneficiary as a 
multinational manager or executive pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(l)(C). 
Noting that the record was deficient, the director requested additional evidence in support of the petition. 
After the petitioner failed to submit the requested evidence, the director denied the petition for abandonment, 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 3 103.2(b)(15). 
The director correctly informed the petitioner that no appeal would lie from the decision. Regardless, the 
petitioner submitted an appeal on March 17, 2006. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that neither 
counsel nor the petitioner received a copy of the request for evidence issued by the director on September 8, 
2005. 
The evidence of record clearly shows that the request for evidence was properly sent to counsel's address of 
record. See 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5a(a)(l). The director's February 27, 2006 decision was sent to the same address, 
and was delivered to counsel. Therefore, the AAO concludes that the request for evidence was properly 
served to the appropriate parties. 
The regulations provide that no appeal lies from the denial of a petition for abandonment. 8 C.F.R. 
103.2(b)(15). As there is no appeal from the director's denial, the petitioner's appeal must be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.