dismissed EB-1C Case: Granite Sales

, ' 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unw~nted 
invasion of personal pnvacy 
U.S. ()cpartmcnt of Homeland Sl'CUI"ity 
U.S. Cili/cnship and Immi~rali()11 Sef\'ices 
Ojjice o(Admil1islr(//ive AppI'OI." \is 2()9() 
Waslllllgtllll. DC 2052l)-2U90 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PUBLlCCOPY 
File: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date DEC 1 6 2010 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. § I 153(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. Pleasc 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 file 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 
suhmitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion. 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(a)( I lei) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank YI:0U' {' , 
, /uu.-Jivd4",-
?::~rry R ew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant 
petition. The director granted the petitioner's subsequent motion to reopen and reconsider and 
affirmed the previous denial of the petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals 
Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a limited liability company organized in the State of New Jersey which claims to be 
engaging in the business of granite sales and distribution. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its 
general manager. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. 
on July 23, 2007, seeking 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. § 1153(b)(I)(C), as 
a multinational executive or manager. 
The director denied the petition on March 17, 2009, determining that the petItIoner had not 
established: (I )that the U.S. company would employ the beneficiary in a primarily managerial or 
executive capacity; (2) that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive 
capacity; or (3) that there exists a qualifying relationship between the United States petitioner and 
the beneficiary's foreign employer. 
On April 17, 2009, the petitioner filed a motion to reopen and reconsider along with additional 
evidence to address the grounds for denial stated in the director's decision. On May 28, 2009. the 
director issued a decision granting the motion to reopen and reconsider but affirming the previous 
decision to deny the petition. The director withdrew his determination with respect to the 
petitioner's failure to demonstrate the existence of a qualifying relationship between the U.S. and 
foreign entities, but concluded that the evidence submitted to address the beneficiary's U.S. and 
foreign employment failed to overcome the grounds for denial as stated in the previous decision. 
On June 29, 2009, the petitioner filed an appeal of the director's decision on the motion. On the 
Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, counsel checked the box indicating that a brief and/or 
additional evidence would be submitted within 30 days. In addition, in Parl 3 of the Form 1-290B. 
where the petitioner is to set forth the basis for the appeal, counsel simply stated: 
The petition was denied on the grounds that 
I) The beneficiary was not employed in am managerial/executive position 
2) The beneficiary was not employed in am managerial/executive position 111 the 
overseas company for a continuous period of one year. 
The petitioner and beneficiary will be submitting additional proof and legal grounds 
to overcome these grounds for denial. 
To date, careful review of the record shows that no brief or additional evidence has been submitted 
by the petitioner since the Form I-290B was filed in June 2009. 
Page 3 
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." 
The petitioner has failed, in the Form \-290B or in any subsequent submission, to identify an 
erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in the director's decision as a basis for the instant 
appeal. Thus, 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. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.