dismissed EB-1C Case: Real Estate Development

identitying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
DATE: 
AUG 1 5 2012 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
u. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W .• MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a M ulttnational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 1 53(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised 
that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
-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 Florida corporation that is engaged in real estate development. It seeks to 
employ the beneficiary as its President and General Manager. Accordingly, the petitioner 
endeavors to classifY the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(I)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § I I 53(b)(l)(C), as a 
multinational executive or manager. 
On November 24, 2009, the director denied the immigrant petition concluding that the petitioner 
failed to establish that the beneficiary'S proposed employment with the U.S. entity would be within 
a qualifYing managerial or executive capacity. On December 28, 2009, the petitioner submitted the 
Form 1-2908 to appeal the director's denial. On appeal, the petitioner submits a one-page letter that 
states, "we consider there is enough evidence to proof [sic 1 that the beneficiary would be 
functioning primarily within the 'executive' or 'managerial capacities' as defmed by the rules." 
The petitioner also states that it employs "more than 27 different companies" as subcontractors. 
Furthermore, the petitioner states that the beneficiary "uses his independent discretion and authority 
in identifYing and cultivating new information sources, develop strong and mutually beneficial 
relationship with the different sub-contractors and other high level sources." 
On appeal, the petitioner does not submit any additional evidence or documentation to corroborate 
the claim that it utilizes independent contractors. As noted in the director's decision, the petitioner 
only provided evidence of employing the beneficiary and one other employee. Although the 
petitioner provided a list of subcontractors, it failed to provide any evidence that the petitioner 
utilizes the subcontractors such as paystubs, Form 1099, contracts or invoices. Going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter of So/fici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter 
of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972». 
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.F.R. § 1 03.3(a)(1 )(v). 
The petitioner fails to identifY any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 
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.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.c. § 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.