dismissed EB-1C Case: International Trade

U.S. Department of Homeland Sec~~rity 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
PUBLIC COPY U. S. Citizenship 
and Inmigration 
@tieing date deleted to 
pvat dearly marranted 
kw- of pasonid privacy 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
EAC 03 23 1 50801 
 Date: HAY 1 5 m7 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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 1 153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
"4 Ip ert P. Wiema , Chief 
94" 
inistrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonirnrnigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
The petitioner is a corporation organized in the State of New York in July 2002. It states that it is engaged in 
the international trade of woodworking machinery, timber, furniture and decorative items. The petitioner 
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. $ 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
The director denied the petition on July 27, 2006, concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the 
beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal on August 28, 2006. The director declined to treat the appeal as a 
motion and forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal, the 
petitioner indicated that it would send a brief and/or evidence to the AAO within 30 days. 
As no additional evidence has been incorporated into the record, the AAO attempted to contact the petitioner 
by facsimile to request that the petitioner acknowledge whether the brief and/or evidence were subsequently 
submitted, and, if applicable, to afford the petitioner an opportunity to re-submit the documents within five 
business days. The facsimile number on record for the petitioner was no longer in service. The petitioner did 
not provide a contact telephone number on the Form I-290B, and an attempt to contact the petitioner at the 
telephone number on record was unsuccessful. Accordingly, the record will be considered complete. 
To establish eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) 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 affiliate or subsidiary thereof, must have employed the 
beneficiary for one continuous year. Furthermore, the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States 
temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof 
in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. $ 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. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. 
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. tj 1361. Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify 
specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in support of the appeal, the petitioner has 
not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.