dismissed EB-1C Case: Management

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unw~ted 
invasion of personal pnvac) 
PUBLIC COPY 
u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration SeIVices 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: FEB 1 0 2.011 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1)(C) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(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 Texas corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its 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. The director denied the petition based on four established grounds of ineligibility. The 
petitioner failed to establish that: 1) the beneficiary was employed abroad in qualifying managerial or 
executive capacity; 2) the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity; 3) the 
petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity that previously employed the beneficiary; and 
4) it has the ability to pay the beneficiary's proffered wage. 
On February 12, 2009, the petitioner filed an appeal seeking review of the director's decision. Counsel, on 
behalf of the petitioner, states that "the officer erroneously interpreted the financial evidence" and that a brief 
and/or additional information would be submitted within 30 days of the appeal. In a letter from counsel 
which was received by u.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services on March 20, 2009, counsel asked for 
more time in which to submit additional evidence. To date, however, nearly three years since the appeal was 
filed and over 22 months since counsel's second request for more time to submit evidence, the record 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. § 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. 
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.