dismissed EB-1C Case: Precious Stones Trade

identifiing data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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. 
f 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
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 filed the instant immigrant petition to classify the beneficiary as a multinational manager or 
executive pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(C). The petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York that is 
engaged in the trade of precious stones. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as its president. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that: (1) the 
beneficiary would be employed by the United States entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity; or 
(2) at the time the priority date was established, the petitioner had the ability to pay the beneficiary's proffered 
annual salary of $36,000. 
On Form I-290B, counsel contends: 
Further documentations and explanations that will be submitted will establish the fact "The 
beneficiary is working in a managerial/executive capacity and will continue to do so." It will 
also establish that the Corporation has the ability to pay compensation to the beneficiary at 
present and continue to do so. 
Counsel notes that a brief and evidence would be submitted to the AAO within thirty days of filing the appeal 
on September 7, 2005. As of this date, the petitioner has not submitted any additional documentation. The 
MO notes that on January 25,2006, a notice was sent to counsel via facsimile to verify whether an appellate 
brief or additional evidence had been provided. Counsel did not respond to the AAO's request. 
To establish eligibility under section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act, the petitioner must meet certain criteria. 
Specifically, within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, a 
firm, corporation, or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof, must have employed the 
beneficiary for one continuous year. Furthermore, the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States to 
continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial 
or executive capacity. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 3 103.3(a)(l)(v) state, 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. 
Inasmuch as counsel has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in 
this proceeding, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
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. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.