dismissed EB-1C Case: Hospitality

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
PlJnJc copy 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 21PR06eBgl 
EAC 02 196 51908 
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. $ 1 153(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 ofice. 
+@c:>- 
Robert P. wikiann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Yage 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service Center. The 
matter subsequently came before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO determined 
that the appeal was untimely filed and rejected the appeal. The AAO subsequently granted the petitioner's 
motion, but ultimately dismissed the appeal.' The matter is now on second motion before the AAO. The 
motion will be dismissed. The AAO's prior decision dismissing the appeal will be affirmed. 
The petitioner is a Virginia corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as an innkeeper. 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 1 153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational 
executive or manager. The director determined that the beneficiary would not be employed in the United 
States in a managerial or executive capacity and denied the petition. 
The petitioner filed an appeal seeking to overturn the director's decision. However, the AAO rejected the 
appeal as untimely filed. The petitioner subsequently filed a motion on December 7, 2004 claiming that the 
AAO's determination that the appeal was untimely filed was incorrect. Upon review, the AAO granted the 
petitioner's motion, determining that the appeal was timely filed. Based upon a comprehensive review of the 
petitioner's record of proceeding, the AAO determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility to 
classify the beneficiary as a multinational manager or executive and dismissed the appeal. 
The record shows that prior to the AAO's latest decision, the petitioner filed an identical motion on December 
14, 2004 seeking again to review the AAO's initial rejection of the appeal based on the determination that it 
had been untimely filed. As previously stated, the AAO has already granted an identical motion as that 
currently before this office and has issued a decision based upon its comprehensive review of the record. 
Having considered the record in its entirety including the petitioner's submissions on appeal, the AAO need 
not reexamine the matter further, as no additional evidence or reasons for reconsideration have been 
submitted. Therefore, the AAO will affirm its most recent decision hsmissing 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. tj 1361. As fully discussed in the AAO's decision dated 
December 22,2005, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: 
 The motion is dismissed. The AAO's decision dismissing the appeal is affirmed. 
1 
 In the decision rejecting the appeal, the AAO determined that the appeal was received on August 29, 2003, which 
would have been 37 days after the denial was issued. However, a review of the date stamp on the Form I-290B shows 
that the appeal was received on August 25,2003, which is within the 33-day time limit.