dismissed EB-1C Case: Moving Business

DATE: 
NOV 0 7 2012 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. CitiLenship and Immigration Services 
Admini~trativc Appeals Olfie.: (AAOI 
20 Massachusetts Avc .. N.W .. MS 2UY() 
Washington. DC 20529-209() 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FlLE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant 
to Section 203(b)( I )(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § I 153(b)( I )(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please fllld the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this mailer have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that officc. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen 
with the field office or service center that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of 
Appeal or Motion. with a fee of $630. The specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 
8 C.F.R. ~ 103.5. Do not file any motion directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 
103.5(a)( I }(i) requires any mOlion to be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to 
recoll~ider or reopen. 
Thank you. 
Ipe,TY hew 
Chief. Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Pagt' 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center. 
The petitioner filed a motion to reopen and reconsider which was subsequently dismissed. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner is a moving business that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its "Executive and 
Manager." 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. § 1153(b)( I )(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
The director denied the immigrant petition concluding the following: (1) the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary's employment abroad was in a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity: (2) the petitioner failed to establish that it would employ the beneficiary in a 
managerial or executive capacity: (3) the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary will be 
an employee: amI. (4) the petitioner failed to establish that it had the ability to pay the proffered 
wage at the time the priority date was established. 
On August 31. 2011. the petitioner submitted the Form 1-290B to appeal the director's denial. 
The petitioner marked the box at part two of the Form 1-290B to indicate that a brief and/or 
additional evidence will be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. The record indicates that the 
petitioner did not file a brief or supplemental evidence within the allowed timeframe. The AAO 
will consider the record complete as presently constituted. 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party 
concerned fails to identify ,pecifically any elToneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for 
the appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
On the Form 1-290B, the petitioner states: "I have submitted enough evidence to prove the 
relationship between the US and foreign company. I have submitted proof of financial ability. I 
will submit more proof on these issues." In regards to the director's conclusion that the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence to show the beneficiary's eligibility for the 
immigrant petition, the petitioner fails to identify any elToneouS conclusion of law or statement 
of fact for the appeal, nor has the petitioner acknowledged all stated grounds for the denial of the 
petition. 
The petitioner failed to provide any additional evidence to overcome the director's concerns. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in the:;e proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 
1972». 
As no additional evidence is pre:;ented on appeal to overcome the decision of the director, the 
appeal will be summarily dismissed in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § J03.3(a)(1)(v). 
Page ~ 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
S U.S.c. * 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed. The petition is denied.