dismissed EB-1C Case: Marketing

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarr~nte(i 
invasion of personal pnvac) 
PUBLlCCOPY 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: 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 Immigrationn 
Services 
Date: 
DEC 2 3 2010 
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. § I I 53(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 I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days ofthe 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. 
Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classity 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. § IIS3(b)(I)(C), as a 
multinational executive or manager. 
On May 19, 2009, the director denied the petition based on the determination that the petitioner failed to 
establish that it had been doing business in the United States for one year prior to filing this petition as required 
by 8 C.F.R. § 204.SG)(3)(i)(D). 
On appeal, the beneficiary, on behalf of the petitioner, disputes the director's conclusion and states that a brief 
andlor additional information would be submitted within 30 days of the appeal. The remainder of the 
documents that were submitted at the time of the appeal included a notarized affidavit from the beneficiary 
and two letters. All three statements indicated that the petitioner submitted supporting documents. The 
beneficiary'S statements did not, however, explain which documents specifically address the primary 
deficiency that served as the basis for the director's decision, i.e., the lack of evidence establishing that the 
petitioner had been doing business for one full year prior to filing the Form 1-140. Additionally, with regard 
to the submission of further evidence andlor information in support of the appeal, the AAO notes that more 
than eighteen months has 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)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part: 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party 
concerned fails to identity 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 identity 
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.