dismissed EB-1C Case: Magnetic Media Products

identieing data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of pasonal privacy 
PUBLlC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
FILE: WAC 05 127 53422 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: YV\p 3 1 ?o&j 
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 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. 
P. Vkemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 05 127 53422 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California 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. 
9 1153(b)(l)(C). The petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of 
California that is engaged in the sale of magnetic media products, such as floppy diskettes, Zip disks, CD-R's, 
DVD-R's, full service replication, inkjet cartridges and portable audios. The petitioner seeks to employ the 
beneficiary as its president. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary 
would be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
On Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal, dated October 25, 2005, counsel contends: 
USCIS denied the 1-140 petition on the ground that the submitted evidence was insufficient to 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary has been or will be functioning in a managerial or executive 
capacity. Arguments as well as documents will be submitted to demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary has been performing the managerial andlor executive duties including evidence 
to show that the staff he manages are professionals. 
Counsel requests thirty days from the date of filing the appeal to submit an appellate brief. 
As of this date, counsel has not submitted any additional documentation. The AAO notes that on March 2, 
2006, a request was sent to counsel via facsimile for an appellate brief or additional evidence. Counsel 
responded on March 8, 2006, indicating that he had not filed a brief or evidence as previously noted on Form 
I-290B. 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. Counsel's 
general objection to the denial of the petition, without identifying any specific errors on the part of the 
director, are simply insufficient to overcome the conclusions the director reached based on the evidence 
submitted by the petitioner. The unsupported 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 (1984); 
Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1980). 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v) state, in pertinent part: 
WAC 05 127 53422 
Page 3 
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. 
 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.