dismissed EB-1C Case: Marketing

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Irrnnigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigrationn 
Services 
Date: FEB 2 4 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, 
" PerryRhew 
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 153(b)(1)(C), as a 
multinational executive or manager. 
On February 26, 2009, the director denied the petition based on three independent adverse findings. The 
director concluded that the petitioner failed to establish that 1) the beneficiary was employed abroad in a 
qualifying managerial or executive capacity; 2) the petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the 
beneficiary'S foreign employer; and 3) the beneficiary would be employed by the U.S. entity within a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, the beneficiary provides her own personal account of her life in the United States and requests that 
a green card be issued to her so that she can remain in the United States on a permanent basis. The 
beneficiary makes no mention of any of the three grounds that served as the bases for the director's adverse 
decision. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(I)(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.