dismissed EB-1C Case: Real Estate And Investment

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
identifying data deleted to 
 U.S. Citizenship 
prevent ci~uiiy unwarranted and Immigration 
invasion of personal privacy 
I 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: - LIN 04'092 50459 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: MAR 2 1 2006 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the 1mmigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(l)(C) 
d 
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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
i 
',8 
LIN 04 092 50459 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska 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. 
3 1153(b)(l)(C). The petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of 
Illinois that is engaged in real estate and investment. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as its 
president. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary 
had been employed abroad or would be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive 
capacity. 
On Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal, filed on June 17,2005, counsel contends: 
The USCIS did not adequately consider the evidence on the record in determining that 
Petitioner had not established the need for Beneficiary or that the position had not been 
adequately described. Next, the Service erroneously concluded that information from 
Petitioner was testimony by counsel. The terminologies used by petitioner to describe the 
position are actual description[s] of the position and the functions that beneficiary would be 
carrying out. The Service did not adequately give full consideration to several matters on the 
record inarriving [sic] atits [sic] decision. For this and further breif [sic] and evidence to be 
submitted, Petitioner requests the AAU to reverse the decision of the USCIS[.] 
I 
Counsel requests ninety days from the date of filing the appeal to submit an appellate, brief. 
As of this date, counsel has not submitted any additional documentation. The AAO notes that on March 1, 
2006, a request was sent to counsel via facsimile for an appellate brief or additional evidence. Counsel did 
not respond to the AAO's request. Accordingly, the record will be considered complete. 
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. Counsel's 
brief statement on Form I-290B fails to acknowledge, much less resolve, the deficiencies that are discussed in 
great detail in the director's denial. Counsel's general objections to the denial of the petition, without 
identifying any specific errors on the part of the director, are simply insufficient to overcome the 
well-founded and logical conclusions the director reached based on the evidence submitted by the petitioner. 
The unsupported statements of counsel on appeal or in a motion are not evidence and thus are not entitled to 
any evidentiary weight. See INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 188-89 n.6 (1984); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 
17 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1980). 
LIN 04 092 50459 
Page 3 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. fj 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. tj 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.