dismissed EB-1C Case: Import/Export

id€!d&hg data de1iJtdm 
prevent clearly unwananted 
iavasiaaof pessonal privacy 
U.S. Department of IIomeland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Bi( 
EAC 03 029 52410 
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. 
/-- * "/-- - k& 
fiLbe&iemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service Center. 
 The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
The petitioner was established in 2000 and claims to be engaged in the business of importing and exporting 
shrimp and fish. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its president. 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. 5 1 153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or 
manager. The director denied the petition based on the determination that the petitioner failed to establish 
that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director "failed to take into account issues caused by [the] first unjustified 
denial." No further explanation was provided; nor was any mention made of the petitioner's failure to respond 
to the request for additional evidence (RFE) issued on January 10, 2006.' However, counsel indicated that 
additional infomation would be submitted within 30 days in support of the appeal. On March 6, 2007, the 
AAO reviewed the record of proceeding and found that no additional evidence or information had been 
submitted since the appeal was filed on June 26, 2006. Accordingly, the AAO faxed the petitioner a notice 
allowing an additional five days in which to provide a brief and/or any information if the petitioner had 
previously submitted such information. The AAO clearly stated that this was not meant to allow the 
petitioner additional time in which to provide new information that had not been previously submitted. 
Rather, this was merely an attempt to allow the petitioner to provide information that may have been 
submitted but never matched with the record of proceeding. To date, however, the petitioner has not 
responded to the AAO's facsimile. Accordingly, the record will be considered complete as currently 
constituted. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 103.3(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 eligbility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Despite the broad statement made by counsel on appeal, 
no further explanation has been provided identifying specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a 
statement of fact in this proceeding. As such, the petitioner has not sustained its burden. Therefore, the 
appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed. 
The record shows that the director issued a notice on January 10, 2006 dismissing the petitioner's motion to reopen and 
reconsider. However, pursuant to the provisions specified in 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(5)(ii), the director reopened the matter 
on service motion based on the determination that the request for evidence (RFE), which prefaced the initial denial of the 
petitioner's Form 1-140, was not sent to the petitioner's attorney. Thereby, the director issued a new RFE informing 
counsel of the various deficiencies which, if not rectified, would lead to an adverse decision.