dismissed EB-1C Case: Hospitality

(b)(6)
JUN 1 1 2013 DATE: 
INRE: Petitioner : 
Beneficiary : 
U.S. Department of Homel.and Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massac husetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
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: 
SELF -REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
Enclosed please fmd 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 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 reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page2 
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 
dismissed. 
The petitioner is a corporation licensed to do business as a motel. It seeks to employ the beneficiary 
as a hotel inspector. The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based 
immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(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 on September 29, 2012, concluding that: (1) 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 the beneficiary's overseas employer; and, ( 4) the petitioner failed to establish that it 
has the ability to pay the beneficiary's proffered wage. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified 
immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) 
through (C): 
* * * 
(C) Certain Multinational Executives and Managers. -- An alien is 
described in this subparagraph if the alien, in the 3 years preceding 
the time of the alien's application for classification and admission into 
the United States under this subparagraph, has been employed for at 
least 1 year by a firm or corporation or other legal entity or an affiliate 
or subsidiary thereof and who seeks to enter the United States in order 
to continue to render services to the same employer or to a subsidiary 
or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial or executive. 
The language of the statute is specific in limiting this provision to only those executives and 
managers who have previously worked for a firm, corporation or other legal entity, or an affiliate or 
subsidiary of that entity, and who are coming to the United States to work for the same entity, or its 
affiliate or subsidiary. 
A United States employer may file a petition on Form I-140 for classification of an alien under 
section 203(b)(1)(C) ofthe Act as a multinational executive or manager. No labor certification is 
required for this classification. The prospective employer in the United States must furnish a job 
offer in the form of a statement which indicates that the alien is to be employed in the United States 
in a managerial or executive capacity. Such a statement must clearly describe the duties to be 
performed by the alien. 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
Upon review, the AAO agrees with the director's decision and will affirm the denial of the petition. 
On April 30, 2012, the director put the petitioner on notice of the required evidence and gave a 
reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the visa petition was adjudicated. See 8 
C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). Specifically, the director requested inter alia evidence to establish eligibility 
for the immigrant petition. The director provided a detailed list of evidence the petitioner needed to 
provide. In response, the petitioner failed to provide any of the requested evidence. Instead the 
petitioner submitted a letter, dated July 18, 2012, that stated the beneficiary "has an approved I-140, 
with a current priority date of June 23, 2006. 
The director denied the petition after noting that the petitioner failed to submit the requested 
evidence. On appeal, the petitioner contends that the current petition was a request to amend a 
previously approved Form I-140 ( . However, the current Form I-140 does not 
indicate that this is a request to amend a prior petition. Thus, this I -140 filing is considered a new 
filing, separate from the previously approved I-140 petition. Each petition filing is a separate 
proceeding with a separate 
record. See 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.8(d). In making a determination of statutory 
eligibility, users is limited to the information contained in that individual record of proceeding. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(ii). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.2(b )(8)(ii) states that the director may request 
additional evidence 
in appropriate cases. Although specifically requested by the director, the petitioner did not provide 
the requested evidence. The petitioner's failure to submit this information cannot be excused. The 
failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for 
denying the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). The director appropriately denied the petition, in 
part, for failure to submit requested evidence. 
Where, as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been 
given an opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the 
first time on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). If the petitioner had wanted the submitted evidence to 
be considered, it should have submitted the documents in response to the director's request for 
evidence. Id. Under the circumstances, the AAO need not and does not consider the sufficiency of 
the evidence submitted on appeal. Consequently , the appeal will be dismissed. 
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. Due to the failure to provide the 
requested evidence, the petitioner has not met its burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.