dismissed EB-1C Case: Healthcare

,. 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privac} 
PUBLIC COpy 
FILE: 
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 
Date: FEB 25 2011 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1 )(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § I I 53(b)(1 )(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 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 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $585. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
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 Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner is a healthcare establishment located in Puerto Rico. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as a 
general nurse. 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 )(1 )(C), as a multinational executive or manager. The director denied the petition based on the 
determination that the petitioner failed to comply with the evidentiary requirements listed at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(j)(3)(i), which precluded U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services from being able to determine the 
petitioner's eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. 
The record shows that the director erroneously instructed the petitioner on the cover page of the denial that 
there was no right of appeal and further advised the petitioner that a motion to reopen or reconsider could 
nevertheless be filed. Counsel properly found the director's advice with regard to the petitioner's appeal rights 
to be erroneous and therefore filed a Form 1-290B seeking appellate review. To the extent that the petitioner 
preserved its right to a properly filed appeal, the AAO will hereby review counsel's statements on appeal. 
In her statement, counsel asserts that the denial was issued in error and explains that the petitioner seeks to 
employ the beneficiary under "Schedule A" as a general nurse for which the Form 1-140 did not contain an 
applicable category to be checked off. Counsel further acknowledges that the petitioner erred in checking the 
box for multinational executive or manager on the Form 1-140 and seemingly attempts to change the 
immigrant visa category. However, by virtue of acknowledging the petitioner's filing mistake, it appears that 
counsel admits that the petitioner does not have a basis upon which to challenge the director's denial of the 
instant Form 1-140. While the AAO acknowledges that the petitioner's error was unintentional, we find that 
the disposition in the instant matter was warranted based on the representations made in the Form 1-140. 
Moreover, while the petitioner may file another Form 1-140 in which it may seek to classify the beneficiary 
under a different visa category, the director cannot make an eligibility determination on the basis of 
information that was not properly presented in the Form 1-140. 
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 
pelltIOner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Inasmuch as the petitioner 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.