dismissed EB-1C Case: Jewelry

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave. N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
JAN 11MlOb 
FILE:, Office: VERMONT SERWCE CENTER Date: 
EAC 03 038 51924 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuabt 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: 
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. 
'eministrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the employment-based visa petition. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
The petitioner claims it was incorporated in 1992. It claims to manufacture jewelry. It seeks to employ the 
beneficiary as its vice-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 determined that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary would be employed in an 
executive or managerial capacity for the petitioner. 
On January 12,2004, counsel for the petitioner submitted an I-290B, Notice of Appeal. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $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." 
On the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal, filed on January 12, 2004, counsel for the petitioner indicated that a 
separate brief and/or evidence would not be submitted. The statement on the Form I-290B reads: 
Improper application of the law and regulations to the documentation and information provided. 
We respectfully request that the Appeals Unit reconsider the Department's decision in this matter 
in light of the evidence submitted in support of this petition. 
The statements of counsel on appeal or in a motion are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary 
weight. See INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 188-89 n.6 (1 984); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503 
(BIA 1980). Inasmuch as counsel does not identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of 
fact as a basis for the appeal, the regulations mandate the summary dismissal of the appeal. 
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. $ 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.