dismissed EB-1C Case: Gasoline Station

ident~rying Jiira aelrted io 
prevent clear! ilnwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of IIomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
6 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: U 9 LWb 
SRC 04 094 50839 
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: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
qJkzp* 
obert P. iemann, Chief 
/ 
 Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
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 filed the instant immigrant petition 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. 
5 1153(b)(l)(C). The petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of 
Florida that is engaged the development and management of a gasoline station. The petitioner seeks to 
employ the beneficiary as its president. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that: (1) at the time of 
filing, the foreign and United States entities enjoyed a qualifying relationship; (2) the beneficiary would be 
employed by the United States entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity; or (3) the petitioner had 
the ability to pay the beneficiary's proffered wage at the time of filing. 
On Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal, the petitioner requests sixty days from the date of filing the appeal on 
September 29,2005 to submit "new evidence to support the case." 
As of this date, the petitioner has not submitted any additional documentation. The AAO notes that on 
October 25, 2006, a request was sent to the petitioner via facsimile for an appellate brief or additional 
evidence. The petitioner did not respond to the AAO's request. Accordingly, the record will be considered 
complete. 
To establish eligibility under section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act, the petitioner must meet certain criteria. 
Specifically, within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, a 
firm, corporation, or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof, must have employed the 
beneficiary for one continuous year. Furthermore, the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States to 
continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial 
or executive capacity. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v) state, 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. 
Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of 
fact in this proceeding, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligbility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.