dismissed EB-1C Case: Hospitality

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Clt~zenshlp and Imm~grat~on Semces 
Oflice of Admlnlstratlve Appeals MS 2090 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529-2090 
identieing data deleted to 
prevent clearly un.vamted 
invasion of persond privacy 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
SRC 07 059 52186 
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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Fonn I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider, as required by 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
&2, L.. 
4 
C' 
John F. *&J Grissom 
Acting 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 Florida corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its hotelier. 
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. 
kj 1 153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
The director denied the petition based on three independent findings of ineligibility: 
 1) the 
petitioner failed to establish that the foreign employer has a qualifying relationship with the U.S. 
petitioner; 2) the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad for at least 
one year in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity with the foreign employer; and 3) the 
petitioner failed to establish that the foreign entity was doing business at the time the petition was 
filed. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director erred in his interpretation and application of the law. 
Counsel also indicated that a brief and/or additional information would be submitted within 30 days 
in support of the appeal. It is noted that the appeal was received by U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services on February 20, 2008. To date, however, no further evidence or information 
has been received into the record. Accordingly, the record will be considered complete as currently 
constituted. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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. 5 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.