dismissed
EB-1C
dismissed EB-1C Case: Management
Decision Summary
The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner failed to identify any specific erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the director's original decision. The petitioner did not submit an appellate brief or any additional evidence to support the appeal within the allowed timeframe.
Criteria Discussed
Qualifying Relationship Managerial Or Executive Capacity
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
(b)(6) DATE: FEB 0 1 2013 INRE : Petitioner: Beneficiary: OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER U.S. Department of Homeland Security U. S. Citizen ship and Immigration Ser vices Administra tive Appe als O ffice CAAO) 20 Massachu sclls Ave. N.W .. MS 2090 Washington. DC 20.529-2 090 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services FILE: PETITION : Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuanl to Section 203(b)( I )(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 deciqed 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 .F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § l03.5(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, · · ~ X,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 is a Florida entity that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its pre~ident and general manager. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavor!) 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)( I )(C), as a multinational executive or manager. The director denied the petition based on two independent adverse findings. First, the director determined that the petitioner failed to establish the existence of a qualifying relationship between itsel( and the beneficiary's employer abroad. Second, the director found that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that the beneficiary's proposed position in the United States would be in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. On appeal, the petitioner generally dispute the denial of the petition by stating on the Form 1-2908 that the director erred in denying the petition and that there is "sufficient proof of the qualifying relationship and managerial position of the beneficiary." Counsel indicated that she would submit an appellate brief or additional evidence directly to the AAO within 30 days. The record indicates that neither counsel nor the petitioner filed 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. § 1 03.3(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 specifically identified an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact on the part of the director as a basis for the appeal. Therefore, the appeal will be 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. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed. ·
Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial
MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.
Avoid This in My Petition →No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.