dismissed EB-1C Case: Management

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
OfJice ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
JUL 68 2009 
IN RE: 
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. § 1 153(b)(l)(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 or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider, as required by 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
JO~. Grissom 
Acting Chief Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center. 
The petitioner subsequently filed a motion, which the director granted. The director then issued 
another decision affirming the prior denial of the petition. The matter is now before the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner is a California corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its general manager. 
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. 
5 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. The director denied the petition based on 
two independent grounds of ineligibility: 1) the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity; and 2) the petitioner failed to establish that 
the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity. 
On appeal, counsel disputes both grounds for denial and merely asks the AAO to refer to previously 
submitted evidence in support of his argument. Counsel does not offer any explanation as to the 
specifics on record that contradict the director's decision or show how the director's findings were 
erroneous. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely 
with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Inasmuch as counsel for 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.