dismissed EB-1C Case: Retail

idmifying data defeced to 
pmnt clearly unwarranted 
invasion of pe~w privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Imrnig~ation 
Services 
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. tj 1 153(b)(l)(C) 
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. 
Y 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based 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 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. 5 1153(b)(l)(C). 
The petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida that is engaged in the sale of 
baby products, artifacts, and Latin groceries. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as its president. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner had not demonstrated that the beneficiary had 
been employed by the foreign entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity or would be employed by 
the United States entity in a qualifying capacity. 
On the Form I-290B, filed on November 14,2005, counsel for the petitioner contends: 
1. Petitioner is a small business established in Florida for many years. 
2. That the effects of several hurricanes have caused severe financial loss to local 
businesses, and for this reason Petitioner . . . requirers] additional time to gather 
information in support of this appeal. 
3. That [Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS)] erred and abused its discretion in 
stating that the Petitioner is 'an electrical apparatus and equipment enterprise' and 
obviously thereby attached the wrong template to the decision, as Petitioner is not in fact 
an electrical a aratus and equipment enterprise. 
4. Thas not one of the applicants in this family, and obviously, [CIS] 
erred and abused its discretion in confusing this case with that of another. 
Counsel requests sixty days from the date of filing the appeal to submit an appellate brief. 
On May 3, 2006, a request was sent by the AAO to counsel via facsimile for a timely filed appellate brief or 
additional evidence. The record indicates that counsel responded via facsimile on May 1 1,2006, noting that a 
brief had not been filed as indicated on Form I-290B. Counsel stated, however, that she had requested an 
extension to file the appellate brief by May 15, 2006. Counsel notes that she had not received a response 
granting the purported request. Counsel submits as evidence an undated motion in which she requested the 
additional time of sixty days. Counsel subsequently submits on May 15, 2006, an appellate brief and 
documentary evidence in support of the appeal. 
To establish eligibility under section 203(b)(l)(C) 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 to 
continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial 
or executive capacity. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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. 
Counsel's appellate brief will not be considered herein. Other than the copy of a motion purportedly filed by 
counsel with the AAO, which incidentally is undated and does not reflect the date from which the extension is 
requested, there is no evidence in the record of counsel's request for permission to submit a brief by May 15, 
2006.' As noted in the AAO's May 3, 2006 notice to counsel, the regulations do not grant the petitioner "an 
open-ended or indefinite period in which to supplement an appeal once it has been filed." In the same letter, 
the AAO clarified that the notice "should not be construed as requesting or permitting the petitioner andlor its 
counsel to submit a late brief and/or evidence in response to this request." Rather, as instructed by the AAO, 
counsel should provide evidence that a brief was filed within the period indicated on Form I-290B. Here, 
counsel requested on Form I-290B sixty days from the time of filing the appeal to provide a brief, thereby 
setting the due date at January 13, 2006. Even if counsel had requested an additional sixty days from this 
date, the appellate brief would have been due on March 14, 2006, sixty-two days prior to the date the instant 
appellate brief was submitted. 
Counsel's claims on Form I-290B are not sufficient to overcome the director's findings that the beneficiary 
was not employed by the foreign entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity and would not be 
employed in the United States as a manager or exe~utive.~ Counsel challenges the director's decision, noting 
that she incorrectly referenced the petitioner as "an electrical apparatus and equipment enterprise." Despite 
the director's incorrect reference to the petitioner's business operations in her October 13, 2005 decision, the 
decision demonstrates that the director properly considered the evidence in the record, particularly the job 
descriptions of the beneficiary's employment both in the United States and abroad. Counsel's blanket claim 
that the director's decision was in error is not sufficient to overcome the director's well-founded conclusions, 
which were based on her analysis of the beneficiary's job duties in the foreign and United States entities, as 
well as the petitioner's failure to provide evidence requested prior to her consideration of the instant issues. 
Counsel has not acknowledged on appeal the beneficiary's employment capacity in either the foreign or 
United States entity. Inasmuch as counsel has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or 
a statement of fact in this proceeding, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
The AAO notes that even if it were to consider counsel's brief on appeal, counsel did not specifically address 
in her appellate brief the director's findings with regard to the beneficiary's former and present employment. 
Rather, counsel focuses on the director's misstatement as to the petitioner's business in the United States, and 
outlines the evidence submitted by the petitioner for the director's review and consideration. With regard to 
the beneficiary's employment, counsel states only that "at no time was the [beneficiary] involved in 
electronics." Counsel further notes CIS' approval of an L-1A nonimmigrant petition field on behalf of the 
beneficiary. Counsel's reliance on a previously approved nonimmigrant petition and vague statements as to 
evidence previously submitted are insufficient to overcome the well-founded conclusions reached by the 
director based on the evidence submitted by the petitioner in support of the instant petition. 
1 
 The AAO notes that the record does not contain an original motion purportedly filed by counsel. Counsel 
did not provide on appeal verification of the purported filing with the AAO, such as a delivery confirmation 
from the United States Postal Service or 
2 
 Counsel reference on Form 
 is unclear. The director does not address a 
in her October 
Page 4 
It should be noted that, in general, given the permanent nature of the benefit sought, immigrant petitions are 
given far greater scrutiny by Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) than nonimmigrant petitions. The 
AAO acknowledges that both the immigrant and nonimmigrant visa classifications rely on the same 
definitions of managerial and executive capacity. See $9 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
tj 1101(a)(44). Although the statutory definitions for managerial and executive capacity are the same, the 
question of overall eligibility requires a comprehensive review of all the provisions, not just the definitions of 
managerial and executive capacity. There are significant differences between the nonimmigrant visa 
classification, which allows an alien to enter the United States temporarily for no more than seven years, and 
an immigrant visa petition, which permits an alien to apply for permanent residence in the United States, and 
if granted, ultimately apply for naturalization as a United States citizen. Cf: $9 204 and 214 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. tjtj 1154 and 1184; see also tj 316 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1427. Because CIS spends less time review 
Form 1-129 Petitions than Form 1-140 immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrant L-1 petitions are simply 
approved in error. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30 (recognizing that CIS approves 
some petitions in error). 
Moreover, each nonimmigrant petition and immigrant petition is a separate record of proceeding with a 
separate burden of proof; each petition must stand on its own individual merits. The approval of a 
nonimmigrant petition in no way guarantees that CIS will approve an immigrant petition filed on behalf of the 
same beneficiary. CIS denies many 1-140 immigrant petitions after approving prior nonimmigrant 1-129 L-1 
petitions. See, e.g. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 25; IKEA US vs. US Dept. of Justice, 48 
F. Supp. 2d at 22; Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. at 1103. In making a determination of 
statutory eligibility, CIS is limited to the information contained in that individual record of proceeding. See 
8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(16)(ii). In this matter, the director properly reviewed the record before her and found 
insufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary had been or would be employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity, based on the petitioner's failure to provide a complete response to a clearly written 
request for evidence on this issue. Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of 
inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(14). 
Moreover, if the previous nonimmigrant petitions were approved based on the same vague and unsupported 
assertions regarding the beneficiary's managerial and executive capacity that are contained in the current 
record, the approval would constitute material and gross error on the part of the director. The AAO is not 
required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of 
prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g. Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N 
Dec. 593,597 (Comm. 1988). It would be absurd to suggest that CIS or any agency must treat acknowledged 
errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. 
denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a court 
of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the nonimmigrant petitions on 
behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service 
center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), aff, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 
2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
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. 4 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
Page 5 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.