dismissed EB-1C Case: Management

• • identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of 'x~"',nM11 '"",'1(;')1 
1'UBLIC COpy 
FILE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
V.S. I)epartment of Homeland Secllrit)' 
lI. S. Citi/.cnship UlHJ Immigration Services 
Administrutivc Appeals ()fticc (t\t\()) 
20 Massachu:.ctts A\t! .. N.W,. MS 2090 
'A-,'a~hinglon. DC 20529~2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigrationn 
Services 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
MAR 01 2011 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)( I )(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 8 U.s.c. § 1153(b)( I )(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 rcaching 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 1-290B. Notice of Appeal or Motion. 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(a)( I )(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you. 
/l -7 lerry Rhew 
() hief. Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.goy 
· . 
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 limited liability company organized in the State of Georgia that seeks to employ the 
beneficiary as its "director/chief executive manager." Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the 
beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(I)(C) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1 )(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
On August II. 2009, 2009, the director denied the petition based on the determination that the petitioner 
failed to establish that it had been doing business in the United States for one year prior to filing this petition as 
required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(D). Given that the petitioner's Certificate of Organization was issued by 
the State of Georgia on April I, 2009, approximately one month prior to the petitioner's tiling of the Form 1-
140, it appears that the had a valid basis to deny the petition. 
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 remainder of the 
documents that were submitted at the time of the appeal included a notarized affidavit and two letters all three 
written by the beneficiary, who indicated that the petitioner submitted supporting documents. The 
beneticiary's statements did not, however, explain which documents specitically address the primary 
deficiency that served as the basis for the director's decision, i.e .. the lack of evidence establishing that the 
petitioner had been doing business for one full year prior to tiling the Form 1-140. Nor did the beneficiary 
explain which of the submitted documents were meant to ovcrcome the basis for denial. Additionally, with 
regard to the submission of further evidence and/or information in support of the appeal. the AAO notes that 
more than sixteen months have passed since the appeal was filed and the rccord has not been supplemented 
with any additional evidence or information. Accordingly, the record will be considered complete as 
currently constituted. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § I03.3(a)(I)(v) states, in pcrtinent part: 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal whcn the party 
concerned fails to identify spccifically 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 cntirely with thc 
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.