dismissed EB-1C Case: Residential Construction

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
b dentifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of persod privacy 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: Y(, 
SRC 06 098 52645 
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. 9 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. 
/'- -G-L 
Robert Pi-iern , Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
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 was established in 2004 and is engaged in the business of residential construction. It seeks to 
employ the beneficiary as its general manager. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the 
beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. The director 
denied the petition based on the following independent grounds of ineligibility: I) the petitioner failed to 
establish that it has a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer; 2) the petitioner failed to 
provide documentation to establish that it and the beneficiary's foreign employer were doing business at the 
time the Form 1-140 was filed; 3) the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in 
a qualifying managerial or executive capacity; 4) the petitioner failed to establish that it would employ the 
beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity; and 5) the petitioner failed to establish its ability to pay the 
beneficiary's proffered wage. 
The petitioner submitted an appeal indicating that an appellate brief and/or additional information would be 
submitted within 30 days in support of the appeal. On November 8, 2006, the AAO reviewed the record of 
proceeding and found that no additional evidence or information had been submitted since the appeal was 
filed on September 8,2006. Accordingly, the AAO faxed counsel a notice allowing an additional five days in 
which to provide a brief and/or any evidence if the petitioner had previously submitted such documentation. 
The AAO clearly stated that this was not meant to allow the petitioner additional time in which to provide 
new information that had not been previously submitted. Rather, this was merely an attempt to allow the 
petitioner an opportunity to provide information that may have been submitted and never attached to the 
record of proceeding. To date, however, the petitioner has not responded to the AAO's facsimile. 
Accordingly, the record will be considered complete as currently constituted. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, 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. 
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. 
 1361. Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify 
specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in this proceeding, the petitioner has not 
sustained that burden. Therefore, the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.