dismissed EB-1C Case: Management

(b)(6)
DATE: 
JUN 272013 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
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 
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)(l)(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 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 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.P.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.P.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, 
l~ 
)(.Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
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, a New York corporation, sought to employ the beneficiary as its general manager. 
Accordingly, the petitioner filed a Form I-140 petition seeking 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. 
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 director also entered a finding of fraud based on the 
inconsistent evidence found in the record. 
On appeal, counsel submitted a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, briefly contending that the 
director's decision was erroneous both with regard to the petitioner's eligibility and the finding of fraud. 
Counsel indicated that he would submit a brief and additional documentary evidence directly to the AAO 
within 30 days. 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)(1)(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, counsel's brief statement on the Form I-290B does not specifically identify any erroneous 
conclusion of law or statement of fact on the part of the director as a basis for the appeal. While counsel 
states that the petitioner "will submit additional documents to prove that the petitioner's explanation of 
inconsistencies is credible," neither the counsel nor the petitioner has submitted such evidence or a brief 
detailing the reasons for the appeal. Therefore, the appeal willbe 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. 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.