dismissed EB-1C Case: Marketing

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
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 SeIVices 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DatefEB 11 2011 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(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 I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
erry 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. 
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. § I I 53(b)(1)(C), as a 
multinational executive or manager. On September 26, 2009, the director denied the petition based on the 
petitioner's failure to respond to a notice of intent to deny, which was issued on August 11,2009. 
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 AAO notes, however, 
that more than 15 months have passed since the appeal was filed and the record has not been supplemented 
with any evidence other than what was submitted at the time the appeal was filed. The documents that were 
submitted at the time of the appeal included a notarized affidavit and two letters from the beneficiary as well 
as the beneficiary'S tax documents, lists of invoices, and vehicle insurance information pertaining to the 
petitioner. 
To the extent that the petitioner's submissions on appeal were intended to address any of the issues covered in 
the previously issued NOID, it is noted that pursuant to regulatory requirements, the petitioner shall submit 
additional evidence as the director, in his or her discretion, may deem necessary. The purpose of the request 
for evidence is to elicit further information that clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit sought has been 
established, as of the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.P.R. §§ 103.2(b)(8) and (12). The failure to submit 
requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(14). Where, as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has 
been given an opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first 
time on appeal. See Matter ojSoriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BrA 1988); see also Matter ojObaigbena, 19 I&N 
Dec. 533 (BrA 1988). If the petitioner had wanted the submitted evidence to be considered, it should have 
submitted the documents in response to the director's request for evidence. Id. Under the circumstances, the 
AAO need not and does not consider the sufficiency of the evidence submitted on appeal. Consequently, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
The regulation at 8 c.P.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.