dismissed EB-1C Case: Retail

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-, LLC 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 8, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, described as a cellular phone retailer, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as 
a manager under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational executives or 
managers. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(C). This classification allows a U.S. employer to permanently transfer a qualified foreign 
employee to the United States to work in an executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the evidence of 
record did not establish that: (1) the company that filed the petition is the same entity that seeks to 
employ the Beneficiary; (2) the Petitioner still exists as a legal entity; (3) the Beneficiary will be 
employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity; (4) the Beneficiary has been 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity; or (5) the Petitioner has the ability to pay the 
Beneficiary's proffered wage. The Director also found that the Petitioner had submitted conflicting 
information regarding the Beneficiary's past employment, the Petitioner's location, and other 
material factors, and that the Petitioner had submitted an incomplete response to a request for 
evidence. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. We will summarily dismiss the gtppeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
An officer will summarily .dismiss an appeal when the Petitioner does not identify specifically any 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 1 
II. DISCUSSION 
The Petitioner marked Box 1(b) in Part 3 of the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, to 
indicate that it would submit a brief and/or additional evidence within 30 days of filing the appeal. 
However, we did not receive a brief or additional evidence within the allotted timeframe. Also, the 
1 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Matter of R-, LLC 
Petitioner did not provide a separate statement regarding the basis of the appeal, as instructed at Part 
4 of the Form I-290B. We therefore consider the record to be complete. 
Review of the appeal shows that the Petitioner has not specifically identified any erroneous 
conclusion of law or statement of fact as a basis for the appeal. Further, the Petitioner has made no 
reference or objection to the specific findings set forth in the Director's decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought? Because the 
Petitioner has not specifically identified an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in this 
proceeding, the Petitioner has not met that b1,uden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 C.P.R.§ 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Cite as Matter ofR-, LLC, ID# 8761 (AAO July 8, 2016) 
2 
Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
2