dismissed EB-1C Case: Management

(b)(6)
DATE: MAR 0 It 2013 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., MS2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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)(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 tpat you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reachi'ng our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to haveconsidered, you may file a mo,tion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the 'instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R.' § 103".5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. 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 reconside .r or reopen. 
Thank you, 
J.. Ron Rosenberg . . 
f'"'A.cting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov · 
(b)(6)
J .-.. 
- ~';.;.-"• . ... 
Page2 
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 managing director. 
Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify · the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant 
to section 203(b )(I )(C) of the Immigration and Nationaiity Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C . § 1153(b )(I )(C), as a 
multinational executive or manager. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner submitted inconsistent and unreliable evidence 
with regard to the beneficiary's employment abroad and that. the petitioner therefore failed to establish that it 
met the filing requirements enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i), which address the issue of the 
beneficiary's qualifying employment abroad, the petitioner's qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's 
foreign employer, and the petitioner's business activity during the one-year period prior to the filing of the 
petition. The director also determined that the petitioner failed to establish that it had the ability to pay the 
beneficiary's proffered wage at the time of filing or that the beneficiary would be employed in the United 
States in a managerial or executive capacity. 
Although counsel submitted a properly executed Form I-290B, Notice o( Appeal or Motion, indicating that 
the director's decision was being appealed, he did not dispute or address any of the director's numerous 
adverse findings. Rather, he indic(lted that a brief and additional evidence in support of the appeal would be 
submitted to the AAO within 30 days of the date of filing the appeal submitted on April 15, 2012. The record 
indicates that the petitioner did not file a brief or supplemental evidence within the allowed timeframe. The 
AAO will consider the record complete as presently 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. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and will affirm the denial of the petition. The 
petitioner has not identified an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact on the part of the director as a 
basis 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. 
OIU)ER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.