dismissed EB-1C Case: Management

;". identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
1'VBLIC COpy 
DATE: OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
MAY 0 5 2011 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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. § 1153(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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner is a Florida corporation that 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)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C), as a multinational 
executive or manager. 
On June 5, 2009, the director denied the petition based on the determination that the petitioner failed to 
submit any documentation in support of the petition thus precluding U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services from being able to determine whether the petitioner is eligible for the immigration benefit sought. 
On appeal, the beneficiary, on behalf of the petitioner, disputes the director's conclusion and states that a brief 
and/or additional information would be submitted within 30 days of the appeal. The documents that were 
submitted at the time of the appeal included a notarized affidavit and a letter from the beneficiary. Both 
statements indicated that the petitioner submitted supporting documents. The beneficiary's statements did not, 
however, explain which documents specifically address the documentary deficiency, i.e., the lack of 
supporting evidence establishing that the petitioner met the filing requirements enumerated at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5G)(3)(i), that served as the basis for the director's decision. 
Also included among the supporting documents were the petitioner's 2007 and 2008 corporate tax returns, 
photocopies of checks issued by the petitioner in 2005, 2006, and 2007, and various invoices and work orders 
for work performed and items purchased in 2005 and 2006. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the 
time of filing the petition; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner or beneficiary 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971). In the 
present matter, no explanation was provided to clarify how these documents are relevant to a Form 1-140 that 
was filed in 2009. Moreover, with regard to the submission offurther evidence and/or information in support 
of the appeal, the AAO notes that approximately twenty two months have passed since the appeal was filed 
and the record has not been supplemented with a supporting brief or relevant evidence. Accordingly, the 
record will be considered complete as currently constituted. 
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. 
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. Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify 
specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in this proceeding, the petitioner has not 
sustained that burden. Therefore, the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.