dismissed EB-1C Case: Marketing And Media

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
OBce ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: DEC 0 1 2009 
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. @ 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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 or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. @ 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. 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 $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider, as required by 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
hief, Administrative Appeals Office 
J- 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 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 and 
electronic media director. 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. 5 1 153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
The director denied the petition based on two independent grounds of ineligibility: 1) the petitioner 
failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity; and 2) the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed at the U.S. 
entity in a managerial or executive capacity. 
Counsel submitted a barely legible, hand-written statement, asserting that the petition was 
wrongfully denied and further stating that the beneficiary has supervisory powers. Counsel also 
indicated that a brief and/or additional information would be submitted within 30 days in support of 
the appeal. On November 9, 2009, the AAO reviewed the record of proceeding and found that no 
additional evidence or information had been submitted since the appeal was filed nearly one year 
earlier on November 18, 2008. Accordingly, the record will be considered complete as currently 
constituted. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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 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 29 1 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 136 1. 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.