dismissed EB-1C Case: Lodging

DATE: 
DEC 08 2012 
OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
lJ.S. Uepartolt'nt of lIomt'land Sl'l.'uritj 
U. S Cili/cnship ;llld Immigr;llion Sl'r\iCl'~ 
i\dnllIll~tr;!tivl' c\ppo:ab OrilCl: (.'\:\0) 
2() Ma~~dl'hll"o:tb .'\,0: . ...... W .. \'lS 2()lJ(j 
\Vashlllgtun. DC 2()52lJ-20Y() 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant 
to Section 203(b)( I )(C) of the Immigration and National ity Act, 8 l; .s.c. 9 I I 53(b)( I )(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or yOlI have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen with 
the field office or service center that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-2l)OB. Notice of Appeal 
or Motion, with a fee of $630. The specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 CF.R. 
§ 103.5. Do not file any motion directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)( I )(i) 
requires any motion to be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
4~""",iW A""",,, 0"", 
www.uscis.g:(rv 
• 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The director of the Nebraska Service Center revoked the approval of the 
preference immigrant visa petition. The matter is now before fhe Administrative Appeals Office 
(AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner is engaged in lodging and it seeks to employ the beneficiary as its Chief Executive 
Officer/Managing Director. 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)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
On December IS, 2010, the director revoked the approval of the petition concluding the 
following: (I) the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary's employment abroad was 
within a qualifying managerial or executive capacity: (2) the petitioner failed to establish that it 
would employ the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity: (3) the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary will be an employee: and, (4) the petitioner failed to establish that it 
had the ability to pay the proffered wage at the time the priority date was established. 
On December 30. 2010, counsel for the petitioner submitted the Form 1-2908, Notice of Appeal 
or Motion, to appeal the director's denial. Counsel marked the box at part two of the form 1-
2908 to indicate that a brief and/or additional evidence will be submitted to the AAO within 30 
days. More than 30 days have passed, and the record indicates that the petitioner has not filed a 
brief or supplemental evidence as of this date. Thus, the AAO deems the record complete as 
currently constituted and ready for adjudication. 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the pany 
concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for 
the appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1 lev). 
In regards to the director's conclusion that the petitioner failed to suhmit sufficient nidencc to 
show the beneficiary's eligibility for the immigrant petition, counsel for the petitioner rai" to 
identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact as a basis for the appeal. The 
petitioner also failed to provide any additional evidence to overcome the director', cOllcerns. 
Going on record without supponing documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of'Sofjle;, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 16S 
(Comm'r 1998) (citing Maller or Treasllre Crati of' Calif(JrlJ;a. 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 
1972). 
As the petitioner has not identified specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of 
fact on the part of the director as a basis for the appeal, the appeal will be summarily dismissed 
in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Sectioll 291 of the Aet. 
8 U.s.c. § 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.