dismissed EB-1C Case: Grocery

U.S. Department of EIorneland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
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. 
-- -- -9- -- 
- L- y--- - - -/-'*y.J,-. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner is a Texas corporation operating as a grocery store. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its 
manager. 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. 
tj 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. The director denied the petition based on the 
following independent grounds of ineligibility: 1) the petitioner does not have a qualifying relationship with 
the foreign entity as claimed; 2) the beneficiary was not employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or 
executive capacity; 3) the beneficiary would not be employed in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity; 4) the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence documenting its business activity 
from December 10, 2001 to the present; and 5) the petitioner failed to establish its ability to pay the 
beneficiary's proffered wage. 
el disputes the director's finding regarding the petitioner's claimed affiliate relationship with 
located in Canada. He states that the considerable inconsistency discovered during an 
interview conducted by an immigration inspector in Toronto, Canada on February 10, 2003 was merely a 
misunderstanding. However, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record 
by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such 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). In the instant matter, counsel does not specifically identify an erroneous 
conclusion of law or statement of fact by the director and attempts to overcome a sworn statement made by 
the beneficiary under oath by implying that the beneficiary did not fully understand the questions asked 
during the interview. It is noted that the unsupported statements of counsel on appeal or in a motion are not 
evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight. See INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 188-89 n.6 
(1984); Matter ofRamirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1980). 
Counsel also failed to address the remaining four grounds for ineligibility cited in the director's denial of the 
petition and indicated on the petitioner's Form I-290B that a separate brief or evidence would not be 
submitted. Accordingly, the record will be considered complete as currently constituted. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 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. 
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. 9 1361. Inasmuch as counsel has failed to identify specifically an 
erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in this proceeding, the petitioner has not sustained that 
burden. Therefore, the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.