dismissed EB-1C Case: Marketing

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unw~nted 
invasion of personal prtvac) 
PUBLIC COpy 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
u.s. Department or 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 1 1 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 1-290B, 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, 
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 based on the determination that the petitioner failed to 
meet the eligibility requirements listed at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(j)(3)(i) and (5). 
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 indicated 
that she was submitting "all corporate papers," but provided no information about the documents she claimed 
would be submitted. The remainder of the documents that were submitted at the time of the appeal included a 
notarized affidavit and two letters, all three documents written by the beneficiary, who indicated that the 
petitioner submitted supporting documents. The petitioner also provided a number of the beneficiary'S 
personal documents and records of past employment as well as bank documents and invoices pertaining to 
However, these documents were not accompanied by an explanation clarifYing their 
re ance to matter at hand. 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.