dismissed EB-1C Case: Hair Salon

• 
DATE: DEC 0 8 2012 OFFICE: TEXAS SER VICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
t .S. Dcpartnn'llt or Ilomcland S('curit~ 
L. S. ('ILi/cn"llir and Illlinillr<llion Sl'n ilT" 
i\U1lliUls\ratl\C App..:ab Olfi L''': IA;\{)) 
2(l \1as~achll~clt~ ,\\l:: .. "i.w .. 'vIS 20YI) 
\V'15hillf!LOn. DC ::'052LJ-2()Y() 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant 
to Section l03(h)( I )(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Aet. 8 C.S.c. ~ I 15:1(h)( 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 lhat you might have concerning your case must he tnJde to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to rl'Ort'1l 
in accordance with the instructions on Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, With a lee of 56JO. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 CFR. ~ 103.5. Do not tile any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)( I )(i) requires any Illotion ((1 he filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~61!!:-
Acting Chief. Administrative Appeals Office 
,,\\ w.uscis.gm 
• 
Page :2 
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 hair salon that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its Hair Salon Manager. 
Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based 
immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(I)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.s.c. § 1153(b)( I )(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
On September 12, 2011, the director denied the immigrant petition concluding the following: (I) 
the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary's employment abroad was within a 
qualifying managerial or executive capacity: (2) the petitioner failed to establish that it would 
employ the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity: (3) the petitioner failed to establish 
that a qualifying relationship exists between the petitioner and thc hcneficiary's ovcrseas 
employer: and, (4) the petitioner failed to estahlish that the beneficiary will be an cmployee. 
On Octoher 13, 2011. counsel for the petitioner submitted the Form 1-190B to appeal the 
director's denial. Counsel marked the box at part two of the Form [-290B to indicate that a brief 
and/or additional evidence will be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. More than 30 days 
have passed and the record indicates that the petitioner did not file a bricf or supplemental 
evidence as of this date. Thus, the AAO deems the record complete as currently constitutcd and 
ready for adjudication. 
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 01" fact for 
the appeal. 8 C.F.R. ~ 103.3(a)( I lev). 
[n regards to the director's conclusion that the petitioner failed to suhmit sufficient evidence to 
show the beneficiary's eligibility for the immigrant petition, counsel f()f the petitioncr fails to 
identify any elToneous conclusion of law or statement of fact as a basis for the appeal. Further, 
the petitioner failed to provide any additional to overcome the director's concerns. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Mutter o(Sottici, 22 I&N Dec. 158. 165 (Col11m'r 19'Ji\) 
(citing Maller o(Treasure Craft o( Culifimlia, 14 [&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm·r 1972)). 
As the petitioner failed to identify an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact on the part 
of the director as a basis for the appeal, no brief or evidence is presented on appeal to overcome 
the decision of the director, the appeal will be summarily dismissed in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 
S 103.3(a)(1 lev). 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act. 
8 U.s.c. § 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed. The petition is denied.