dismissed EB-1C Case: Pharmacy

U.S. Department of ZIameland Security 
20 Mass Ave . N W , Rm 3000 
Washtngton, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: MAP 0 4 2009 
SRC 06 194 51243 
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: 
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. 
/ 
John F. Grissom, Acting 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 is a pharmacy that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its senior pharmacy 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 
the determination that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity. 
Counsel, on behalf of the petitioner, filed an appeal asserting that the director's decision was in 
complete disregard to the regulations and recognized case law. Counsel also indicated that a brief 
and/or additional information would be submitted on the petitioner's behalf within 30 days in support 
of the appeal. The AAO notes that the appeal was filed on February 23, 2007. To date, however, 
the record is void of any supplemental documentation. 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 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Inasmuch as counsel 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. 
1 
 It is noted that, according to the New York state corporate records, the petitioner's actual, incorporated name is