dismissed EB-1C Case: Management

(b)(6)
DATE : DEC 3 1 2013 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service s 
Admini strative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusett s 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 (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions . If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
,iRon Ros nberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION : The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
The petitioner is a New York limited liability company 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)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C), 
as a multinational executive or manager. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner was ineligible based on the following findings: 
(1) the petitioner does not have a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's former employer abroad ; (2) 
the beneficiary would not be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity; 
(3) the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or 
executive capacity; and (4) the petitioner failed to establish that it had the ability to pay the beneficiary 's 
proffered wage at the time the petition was filed. 
Although counsel submitted a properly executed Fmm I-290B indicating that the director's decision was 
being appealed, she did not dispute or address any of the director's numerous adverse findings. Rather, she 
restated three of the four grounds listed as the reasons for denial and marked Box B on the Form I-290B, 
indicating her intention to provide a brief and/or additional evidence within 30 days of filing the appeal. 
Counsel filed the appeal on September 12, 2013. The record indicates that the petitioner did not submit a 
brief or supplemental evidence within the allowed timeframe . Therefore , the record will be considered 
complete as presently constituted. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.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, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify specifically an etToneous 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.