dismissed EB-1C Case: Medical Equipment

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 3 1 3)05 
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. 9 1 153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
%bert P. Wiemann, ~irector 
'm 
dministrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the employment-based petition. The matter 
is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner indicates it is a corporation established in January 2000. It is a medical equipment 
manufacturer. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its senior vice-president, international business. 
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. 3 1153(b)(l)(C), as a 
multinational executive or manager. 
After specifically requesting evidence on the issue of the petitioner's qualifying relationship with the 
beneficiary's foreign employer, and receiving no information on this issue, the director determined that the 
petitioner had not submitted evidence to establish a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign 
employer. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. §103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part: "An ot'ficer 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." 
On appeal, the petitioner references its response to the director's request for evidence and asserts that it complied 
with the director's request for evidence. The petitioner states: "There is no Foreign Company involved in this 
request." 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(C) Certain Multinational Executives and Managers. -- An alien is 
described in this subparagraph if the alien, in the 3 years preceding 
the time of the alien's application for classification and admission 
into the United States under this subparagraph, has been employed 
for at least 1 year by a firm or corporation or other legal entity or an 
affiliate or subsidiary thereof and who seeks to enter the United 
States in order to continue to render services to the same employer or 
to a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial or 
executive. 
The language of the statute is specific in limiting this provision to only those executives and managers who 
have previously worked for the firm, corporation or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary of that 
entity, and are coming to the United States to work for the same entity, or its affiliate or subsidiary. In order to 
qualify for this visa classification, the petitioner must establish that a qualifying relationship exists between the 
m 
Page 3 
United States and foreign entities in that the petitioning company is the same employer or an affiliate or 
subsidiary of the foreign entity. 
The petitioner did not provide evidence that it is the same employer or an affiliate, or subsidiary of the 
beneficiary's foreign employer. The record contains no evidence that a qualifying relationship between the 
petitioner and a foreign entity exist. The beneficiary is not eligible for a multinational manager or executive visa 
classification. 
Inasmuch as the petitioner's statement does not identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement 
of fact as a basis for the appeal, the regulations mandate the summary dismissal of 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. fj 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.