dismissed EB-1C Case: Information Classification

Me &I&& to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
ii?vasicsn of personal privacy 
VUBLlC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
R, 
#/r%. 
FILE: , . Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: HaR 3 1 z&& 
SRC 04 166 53006 
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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
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 was established in 2001 in the state of Florida. The petitioner is engaged in the compilation 
and classification of various articles and seeks to employ the beneficiary as its general manager. 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. 3 1153(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 for the petitioner disputes the director's finding and states that a brief would be submitted 
within 30 days. On February 12, 2006, the AAO sent a fax to counsel. The fax advised counsel that no 
evidence or brief had been received in this matter and requested that counsel submit a copy of the brief andlor 
additional evidence, if in fact such evidence had been submitted, within five business days. In response, 
counsel signed the AAO's fax and checked the box that indicated that a brief had not been filed as originally 
indicated in the Form I-290B. Although counsel supplemented the fax with a brief, the brief is dated 
February 17, 2006, thereby indicating that it was written in direct response to the AAO's fax. It is noted that 
the AAO specifically cautioned counsel that the regulations do not permit an open-ended or indefinite period 
in which to file a brief and clearly stated that any brief and/or evidence submitted in response to the AAO's 
facsimile would not be accepted as a timely filed brief. As the record clearly shows that neither the brief nor 
the evidence attached thereto was filed prior to the AAO's issuance of the facsimile discussed herein, the 
AAO deems the additional submissions as untimely filed and need not consider them in rendering the instant 
decision. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 103.3(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.. 
Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of 
fact in this proceeding, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
Notwithstanding the summary dismissal of the petitioner's appeal, the record shows that two L-1 
nonimmigrant petitions were approved on behalf of the beneficiary. However, it should be noted that, in 
general, given the permanent nature of the benefit sought, immigrant petitions are given far greater scrutiny 
by Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) than nonirnrnigrant petitions. The AAO acknowledges that 
both the immigrant and nonimmigrant visa classifications rely on the same definitions of managerial and 
executive capacity. See $9 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1101(a)(44). Although the statutory 
definitions for managerial and executive capacity are the same, the question of overall eligibility requires a 
comprehensive review of all of the provisions, not just the definitions of managerial and executive capacity. 
There are significant differences between the nonimrnigrant visa classification, which allows an alien to enter 
the United States temporarily for no more than seven years, and an immigrant visa petition, which permits an 
alien to apply for permanent residence in the United States and, if granted, ultimately apply for naturalization 
as a United States citizen. Cf. $3 204 and 214 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $5 1154 and 1184; see also 3 316 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1427. 
In addition, because CIS spends less time reviewing Form 1-129 nonimmigrant petitions than Form 1-140 
immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrant L-1 petitions are simply approved in error. Q Data Consulting, Inc. 
v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30 (recognizing that CIS approves some petitions in error). 
Moreover, each nonimmigrant and immigrant petition is a separate record of proceeding with a separate 
burden of proof; each petition must stand on its own individual merits. The prior nonimmigrant approvals do 
not preclude CIS from denying an extension petition. See e.g. Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 
556, \'LO04 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004). The approval of a nonimmigrant petition in no way guarantees that 
CIS will approve an immigrant petition filed on behalf of the same beneficiary. CIS denies many 1-140 
immigrant petitions after approving prior nonimmigrant 1-129 L-1 petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, 
Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 25; IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d at 22; Fedin Brothers Co. 
Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. at 1103. 
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. 3 1361. Inasmuch as counsel 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.