dismissed EB-1C Case: Hydraulic And Pneumatic Equipment

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwanant~ 
imsion of pmrrai privw) 
U.S. Department of Ifomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
1tm 
Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
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. 5 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. 
5 
 Administrative Appeals Office 
*= Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the employment-based petition. The matter 
is now before the Administrative Appeals 0kce (&lo) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner filed the instant immigrant petition to classify the beneficiary as a multinational manager or 
executive pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
8 1153(b)(l)(C). The petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of 
Arizona that is engaged in importing and marketing hydraulic and pneumatic equipment, pumps, valves, and 
accessories. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as its president-chief executive officer. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that: (1) the 
beneficiary would be employed in the Uaited States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity; or (2) a 
qualifying relationship existed between the foreign and United States entities at the time of filing the petition. 
On Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal, filed on June 5,2006, counsel contends: 
The Beneficiary is employed with the Petitioner/Appellant in an executivelmanagerial 
position. The [California] Service Center was legally and factually wrong in ruling 
otherwise. 
The Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the foreign parent company. 
 The 
[California] Service Center was legally and factually wrong in ruling otherwise. 
Counsel requests thirty days from the date of filing the appeal to submit an appellate brief. 
As of this date, counsel has not submitted any additional documentation. The AA0 notes that on November 
7,2006, a request was sent to counsel via facsimile for an appellate brief or additional evidence. Counsel did 
not respond to the AAO's request. Accordingly, the record will be considered complete. 
To establish eligibility under section 203@)(l)(C) of the Act, the petitioner must meet certain criteria. 
Specifically, within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, a 
firm, corporation, or other legal entity, or an afiliate or subsidiary thereof, must have employed the 
beneficiary for one continuous year. Furthermore, the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States to 
continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial 
or executive capacity. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. Counsel's 
brief statement on Form I-290B fails to acknowledge, much less resolve, the inadequacies that are discussed 
in great detail in the director's denial. Counsel's general objections to the denial of the petition, without 
identifying any specific errors on the part of the director, are simply insufficient to overcome the 
well-founded and logical conclusions the director reached based on the evidence submitted by the petitioner. 
The unsupported statements of counsel on appeal or in a motion are not evidence and thus are not entitled to 
any evidentiary weight. See INS v. Phinpathj~a, 464 U.S. 183, 188-89 n.6 (1984); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 
17 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1980). 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v) state, 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. 
Inasmuch as counsel has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in 
this proceeding, the appeal must be summarily 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. 5 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.