dismissed EB-1C Case: Refurbishment Services

U.S. Department of Homeland Sec~~rity 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
iaentifyisg drds dehd lo 
prevent clearly unwamntd 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: NOV 06 2~ 
SRC 06 202 50813 
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. 3 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
d Ro ert P. Wiemann, Chie 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the immigrant visa 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. 
4 1153(b)(l)(C). The petitioner, a Florida corporation, states that it is engaged in the provision of bathroom 
refurbishment services. It claims to be an affiliate of C&M Builders, located in the United Kingdom. The 
petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as its president. 
The director denied the petition on December 7,2006, concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the 
beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal on January 8, 2007. The director declined to treat the appeal as a 
motion and forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal, the 
petitioner indicated that it would send a brief andlor evidence to the AAO within 30 days. 
As no additional evidence has been incorporated into the record, the AAO attempted to contact the petitioner 
by facsimile to request that the petitioner acknowledge whether the brief andlor evidence were subsequently 
submitted, and, if applicable, to afford the petitioner an opportunity to re-submit the documents within five 
business days. The facsimile number on record for the petitioner, which was the same number provided as a 
contact telephone number on the Form I-290B, was no longer in service. Accordingly, the record will be 
considered complete. 
To establish eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) 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 
temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof 
in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 4 103.3(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. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. A review of 
the director's decision dated December 7,2006 reveals the director accurately and thoroughly set forth a specific, 
legtimate basis for denial of the petition. On appeal, the petitioner has not contested the grounds for denial, 
identified an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact, or submitted additional evidence. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof 
in these proceedings. Matter of Sof$ci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft 
of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Cornm. 1972)). 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligbility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. 
 Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1361. Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identiQ 
specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in support of the appeal, the petitioner has 
not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.