dismissed EB-1C Case: Real Estate Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF P-R-E-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 12, 2016 
CERTIFICATION OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a real estate management company, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its 
president under the immigrant classification of a multinational executive or manager. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C). The Director, 
Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The Petitioner filed a motion to reopen and a motion to 
reconsider the Director's decision. The Director denied both motions. The Petitioner then appealed 
the decision to us. We withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the matter for a new 
decision. The Director again denied the petition and returned the case to us. We notified the 
Petitioner of our intention to review the matter on certification. 
The Director originally denied the petition on April 19, 2013, based on a finding that the Petitioner 
had not established its ability to pay the Beneficiary's proffered wage as required by the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). In our remand order dated March 28, 2014, we found that the Petitioner had 
overcome this basis for denial. We also, however, identified two other grounds for denial. 
Specifically, we found that the Petitioner had not established (1) that it would employ the 
Beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or (2) that it had been doing business 
for at least one year prior to the petition's March 21, 2011, filing date. In remanding the case, we 
instructed the Director to certify the case to us if the Director again denied the petition. 
On December 4, 2014, the Director issued a notice of intent to deny the petition, citing the two 
grounds identified in the remand order. In that notice, the Director advised the Petitioner that, if the 
Petitioner did not respond to the notice, then the Director may deny the petition. This information is 
in keeping with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(13), which states: 
If the petitioner or applicant fails to respond to a request for evidence or to a 
notice of intent to deny by the required date, the benefit request may be summarily 
denied as abandoned, denied based on the record, or denied for both reasons. 
The record contains no response to the notice. Accordingly, on April 28, 2015, the Director denied 
the petition and forwarded the case to us. The Director, however, did not properly certify the 
decision in that he did not provide notice and advise the Petitioner that it had 30 days to submit a 
brief, as required by the regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 103 .4( a)(2). Therefore, we sent a notice to the 
Petitioner on November 4, 2015, advising it of its right to submit a brief on certification. 
Matter of P-R-E-, Inc. 
The response period has elapsed, and we have not received any response. Therefore, the Petitioner 
has not responded to the notice of intent to deny, the Director's subsequent decision, or our notice. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely 
with the petitioner. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 
128 (BIA 2013). The Petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The initial decision of the Director, Texas Service Center is affirmed, and the petition 
is denied. 
Cite as Matter of P-R-E-, Inc., ID# 16070 (AAO Feb. 12, 2016) 
2