dismissed EB-1C Case: Marble And Granite Products

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W , Rm. A3042 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clealy unwmted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Petition: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
 1 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 
 1153(b)(l)(C) 
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. 
/ 
P. W~emann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 05 117 53644 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California 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 
rejected. 
The petitioner is an organization incorporated in the State of California in March 2001. It imports, distributes, 
and engineers marble and granite products. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its vice-president. 
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. 9 1153(b)(l)(C), as a 
multinational executive or manager. 
On June 16, 2005, noting that the record was deficient, the director requested additional evidence in support 
of the petition. On September 28, 2005, the director determined that the petitioner had failed to submit the 
requested evidence and denied the petition for abandonment, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(15). 
The director correctly informed the petitioner that no appeal would lie from the decision. Regardless, counsel 
for the petitioner submitted a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal dated October 12, 2005. Counsel asserted that 
the response documents were timely mailed to the California Service Center and requested that the matter be 
reopened. The official having jurisdiction over a motion is the official who made the last decision in the 
proceeding, in this case the service center director. See 8 C.F.R. 
 103.5(a)(l)(ii). 
The AAO is without jurisdiction to reopen the matter as the regulations provide that no appeal lies from the 
denial of a petition for abandonment. 8 C.F.R. 
 103.2(b)(15). As there is no appeal from the director's 
denial, the petitioner's appeal must be rejected and the matter returned to the California Service Center for any 
further action, the director deems appropriate. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.