dismissed EB-1C Case: Multimedia Production

(b)(6)
DATE: DEC 3 0 2014 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Service 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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 a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish 
agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law 
or policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to 
reconsider or a motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or 
Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B 
instructions at http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and 
other requirements. See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Ron Rosenber 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Texas Service Center Director. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will 
be summ arily dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, 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. § 1153(b )(I )(C), as a multinational 
executive or manager. The petitioner is a "full service multimedia production design and 
communications agency." It claims to be a subsidiary of the beneficiary's foreign employer, 
located in The Netherlands. The petitioner seeks to employ 
the beneficiary in the position of Managing Director. 
On May 6, 2014, the director denied the immigrant petition, finding the petitioner had failed to 
establish that the beneficiary would be employed within a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity. 
On June 6, 2014, the petitioner submitted the Form I-290B to appeal the director's denial. The 
petitioner marked the box at part three of the Form I-290B to indicate that a brief and/or 
additional evidence will be submitted to the AAO within 30 calendar days of filing the appeal. 
We never received the brief and/or additional evidence in support of the appeal. Thus, the record 
is complete as currently constituted and ready for adjudication. 
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. 8 C.P.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) . 
The petitioner briefly states that the "Service used an incorrect standard to judge the evidence" 
and that the "petition provided substantial evidence to show that employees and contractors are 
doing the day to day lower-level work so that the Beneficiary can focus almost all of his time on 
executive and managerial duties." 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, counsel for the petitioner fails to identify and document any erroneous conclusion of 
law or statement of fact for the appeal and 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 these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 
I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 
190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)). 
As no additional evidence is presented on appeal to overcome the decision of the director, the 
appeal will be summarily dismissed in accordance with 8 C.P.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reason. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the 
(b)(6)