dismissed EB-1C Case: Investment Management

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
b-! ,"-P t i 
P 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: MAR 2 1 
SRC 04 198 53180 
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. 8 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. 
L( ~4d6~,~&~ d 
flobert P. iemann, Director 
' Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based petition. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 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)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
tj 1153(b)(l)(C). The petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of 
Florida that is engaged in investment management. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as its 
operations manager. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that: (1) the 
beneficiary would be employed by the United States entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity; or 
(2) at the time of filing, the petitioner had the ability to pay the beneficiary's proffered annual salary of 
$36,000. The director also noted the petitioner's failure to address the job duties performed by the beneficiary 
while employed by the foreign entity. 
On Form I-290B, counsel requests thirty days from the date of filing the appeal on June 29,2005 to submit an 
appellate brief. Counsel also references an attached letter, dated June 16, 2005, in which he recognizes 
inconsistencies in the record raised by the director in her decision, and notes that additional evidence will be 
submitted in support of the beneficiary's employment abroad in a qualifying capacity. 
As of this date, counsel has not submitted any additional documentation. The AAO notes that on February 
23, 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(b)(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 affiliate 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. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(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. 3 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.