dismissed EB-1C Case: Marketing

(b)(6)
DATE: MAY 2 9 2013 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 
FILE: 
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: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might 
have concerning 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 in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. 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, 
t~ 1-Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center. The 
petitioner appealed the matter to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The appeal was summarily 
dismissed. The matter is now before the AAO on motion to reconsider. The motion will 
be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a Florida corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its vice president of 
marketing/director of promotions. 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. § 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
On August 28, 2009, the director denied the petition based on the determination that the petitioner failed to 
meet the eligibility requirements listed at 8 C.P.R. §§ 204.5(j)(3)(i) and (5). 
The petitioner appealed the denial disputing the director's findings. The AAO summarily dismissed the 
appeal, noting that the petitioner provided irrelevant documents concerning previously filed immigrant and 
non-immigrant petitions and despite the fact that the beneficiary also provided a notarized affidavit and two 
letters, claiming that the petitioner submitted supporting documents, the record contained no evidence that 
such documents had actually been submitted. 
On motion, the beneficiary, on behalf of the petitioner, asks the AAO to reconsider its prior decision, 
contending that "the server did not request any additional information." The beneficiary questions why the 
AAO did not respond to the appeal by contacting her and requesting additional evidence. The beneficiary 
also provides information pertaining to her qualifications as "an institutional architect of extraordinary 
ability." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) states, in pertinent part: 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any 
pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or Service policy. A motion to reconsider a decision on an application or 
petition must, when filed, also establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence 
of record at the time of the initial decision. 
In the instant case, the petitioner does not cite any legal precedent or applicable law that would indicate an 
error on the part of the AAO in dismissing the petitioner's appeal. Nor does the petitioner submit establish 
that the AAO's decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time the decision was made. 
Therefore, the motion will be dismissed in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4), which states, in pertinent 
part, that a motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 
As a final note, the proper filing of a motion to reopen and/or reconsider does not stay the AAO's prior 
decision to dismiss an appeal or extend a beneficiary's previously set departure date. 8 C.F.R . 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(iv). 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
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. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.