dismissed EB-1C Case: Information Technology

identifying data deleted t~ 
prevent clearly unwarr~ 
invasion of personal pnvlloCY 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: 
JUL 2 7 2012 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Ofiice (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(I)(C) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(I)(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 AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I·290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
PerryRhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center. 
The petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reopen in response to which the director issued a 
second decision denying the petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 
(AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner is a California corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its system and 
network administrator. 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. § IIS3(b)(I)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. In a decision 
dated November 4, 2010, the director dismissed the petitioner's motion to reopen based on the 
determination that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity. 
On November 22, 2010, the petitioner filed an appeal seeking review of the director's decision. 
Counsel, on behalf of the petitioner, disputes the director's conclusion and states that the petitioner 
has submitted "extensive evidence" establishing that the beneficiary warrants the immigrant 
classification of multinational manager. Counsel checked Box C to indicate that no supplemental 
brief or additional evidence would be submitted in support of the appeal. Accordingly, the record 
must be considered complete as currently constituted. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(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 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.c. § 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.