dismissed EB-1C Case: General Management

· . 
identifYing data deleted to 
prevent cka;'ty ilnwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBtrccOpy 
DATE: NOV I 6 2011 OFFICE: TEXAS SERViCE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W .. MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)( I )(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U .S.c. § 1153(b)( I )(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may tile a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided Y011f case by filing a Fonn 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $585. Please be aware that 8 CFR. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motioll,;":"'" :'.: reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you. 
r:.erry Rhew 
lQ'hief, Administrative Appeals Otticc 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appea" Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner is a Florida corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its general manager. 
Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to c1assifv the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant 
'0 section 203(b)(I)(C) of the Immigration all'1 ;')ciionality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § I I 53(b)(I)(C), as a 
multinational executive or manager. The direGlor denied the petition based on three independent findings. 
The director concluded that the petitioner failed to establish that: (I) the beneficiary would be employed in 
the United States in a managerial or executive capacity; (2) the beneficiary was employed abroad in a 
qualifying managerial or executive capacity; and (3) the petitioner was doing business for at least one year 
prior to tiling the petition and continued to business since that time. 
The petitioner submitted an appeal urging the AAO to reconsider the director's decision and indicating that a 
brief and/or additional infonnation would be submitted within 30 days in support of the appea\. On 
November 15, 2011, the AAO reviewed the record of proceeding and found that no additional evidence or 
information had been submitted since t~c anr,c8i 'Nns filed. Accordingly, the record will be considered 
complete as currently constitutt~d_ 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(I)(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. ~ 1361. Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify 
specifically an erroneous conclusion of law il" ;; '"element of fact in this proceeding, the petitioner has not 
sustained that burden. Therefore, the appeal wi!1 be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.