dismissed EB-1C Case: Marketing

· , 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwanante'. 
invasion of personal privac) 
PUBLIC COpy 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Date: FEB 11 2011 
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. § 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: SELF -REPRESENTED 
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)(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, 
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 marketing director of 
product development and enhancement. 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. 
On August 28,2009, the director denied the petition, informing the petitioner that no supporting evidence was 
submitted with the Form 1-140. The director noted that the record lacked any evidence or information about 
the nature of the petitioner's business organization, the work to be performed by the beneficiary in the 
proposed position, and the work performed by the beneficiary during his employment abroad. The director 
generally noted that the petitioner presented no sign of its eligibility to classify the beneficiary as a 
multinational manager or executive. 
On appeal, the beneficiary, on behalf of the petitioner, disputes the director's conclusion and states that a brief 
and/or additional information would be submitted within 30 days of the appeal. The beneficiary claims that 
supporting evidence had not been previously submitted due to family-related medical issues. The beneficiary 
states that he is now submitting additional supporting evidence along with the Form 1-1290B. Such 
documents include a notarized affidavit and two letters all three written by the beneficiary, who indicated that 
the petitioner submitted supporting documents. The beneficiary's statements did not, however, explain which 
documents specifically address the primary deficiencies that served as grounds for the director's decision. 
Other documents included English translations of the following: the beneficiary's badge as an agent of 
_ the beneficiary's professional identification card, the beneficiary's foreign diploma in his 
undergraduate studies, and several recommendation letters with regard to the beneficiary'S work for a 
No documentation was provided to establish that_ 
is a business that is in any way related to the petitioner. It is therefore unclear how any of 
the documents that name the latter entity are relevant to the beneficiary'S employment abroad or his proposed 
employment with the petitioning entity. As such, the submitted documents will not be given any evidentiary 
weight in this proceeding. Additionally, with regard to the submission of further evidence and/or information 
in support of the appeal, the AAO notes that more than 16 months have passed since the appeal was filed and 
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.