dismissed EB-1C Case: Management

identifying data deleted to 
prevent c!l:U;'»'i1warranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
~~l T('" COpy 
DATE: OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
NOV 1 6 2011 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Securit) 
U. S. CiliLenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AA() 
20 Massachusetts Avc. N.W .. MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529~2()9() 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant 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 tu the ol!:cc that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might havc ""nc"i'iii,,~, 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. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decic'cd your case by filing a Fonn 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $585. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(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 Florida corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its managing director/general 
manager. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based 
immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)( I )(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U .S.c. 
§ IIS3(b)(I)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. The director denied the petition based on two 
grounds of ineligibility. Namely, the director concluded that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary was employed abroad and II";;!! 11<" w,'uld be employed in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
The petitioner submitted an appeal urging the AAO to reconsider the director's decision and indicating that a 
brief and/or additional information would be submitted within 30 days in support of the appeal. On 
September 27, 20 II, the AAO reviewed the record of proceeding and found that no additional evidence or 
infonnation had been submitted since the appeal was filed on July 6, 2009. Accordingly, the record will be 
considered complete as currently constitukd. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.3(a)(I)(v) states, in pertinent part: 
An officer to whom an appeal is (?ok'.']:: ,>,.:1 s!lmmarily 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 en'oneous conclusion of la\" 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.