dismissed EB-1C Case: Party Planning

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: FEB 2 El 2006 
SRC 05 158 52315 
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: 
I 
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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (MO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected as 
untimely filed. 
In order to properly file an appeal, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(2)(i) provides that the affected party 
must file the complete appeal within 30 days of service of the unfavorable decision. If the decision was 
mailed, the appeal must be filed within 33 days. See 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5a(b). In accordance with 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(a)(7)(i), an application received in a Citizenship and Immigration Sehices (CIS) office shall be 
stamped to show the time and date of actual receipt, if it is properly signed, executed, and accompanied by the 
correct fee. For calculating the date of filing,-the appeal shall be regarded as properly filed on the date that it 
is so stamped by the service center or district ~ffice. 
The record indicates that the director issuedJthe decision on July 15, 2005. It is noted that the director 
properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file the appeal. According to the date stamp on the 
Form I-290B Notice of Appeal, it was received by CIS on August 24,2005, or 40 days after the decision was 
\ 
issued. Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(2) states that, if an untimely appeal meets the requirements of a 
motion to reopen or a'motion to reconsider, the appeal must be treated as a motion, and a decision &st be 
made on the merits of the case. The official having jurisdiction over a motion is the official who made the 
' 
last decision in the proceeding, in this case the service center director. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(ii). The 
director declined to treat the late appeal as a motion and forwarded the matter to the MO. 
As the appeal was untimely filed, the appeal must be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected. 
U.S. Department of IIomeland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
~dentifyinrg data deletea U. S. Citizenship prwe~~t cieasly uowtamant& and Immigration 
;nvmion off ~ersmal privacy Services 
pmHkIG Copy 
FILE: office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 0 4 2006 
18 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. 5 1153(b)(l)(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. 
A- 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
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 was established in 2002 in the state of Florida. The petitioner is engaged in the business of 
party planning and related rental and catering services. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its general 
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. 
5 1153(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 managerial or executive capacity; and 2) the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary 
would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. 
Although the petitioner submitted an appeal, it was non-responsive to the director's concerns. The appeal 
consisted of a single statement dated January 2, 2006 generally disputing the director's findings and a 
resubmission of the petitioner's response to the director's September 14, 2005 request for additional evidence. 
The petitioner indicated on its Form I-290B that it would not submit a separate brief or evidence. 
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 the instant matter, the petitioner has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a 
statement of fact in this proceeding. Therefore, this matter does not warrant a full decision addressing the 
particular merits of the denial. 
Additionally, though not addressed in the director's decision, a review of the record suggests that the 
petitioner failed to comply with 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(g)(2), which requires that the petitioner establish its ability 
to pay the beneficiary's proffered wage. 
The record also fails to establish that the petitioner'was doing business for one year prior to filing the Form I- 
140 as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.56)(3)(i)(D). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 204.56)(2) states that doing business means "the regular, systematic, and continuous 
provision of goods andlor services by a firm, corporation, or other entity and does not include the mere presence 
of an agent or office." 
While the petitioner provides invoices dating back to November of 2004, the petition was filed in March of 2005. 
Therefore, in order to satisfy the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 5 204.56)(3)(i)(D) the petitioner must establish that' 
it was engaged in "the regular, systematic, and continuous"' course of business since March 1, 2004, exactly one 
year prior to filing the Form 1-140. The petitioner has not provided any invoices or any evidence of business 
transactions fi-om March 1,2004 through October 2004. 
1 See 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(j)(2) for definition of doing business. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by 
the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). Therefore, based on the additional grounds of ineligibility discussed above, this 
petition cannot be approved. 
When the AAO denies a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a challenge only 
if it is shown that the AAO abused its discretion with respect to all of the AAO's enumerated grounds. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, afd. 345 F.3d 683. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligbility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361., For reasons discussed above, the petitioner has not 
sustained that burden. Therefore, the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.