dismissed EB-1C Case: Rugs

idartifying dpdn deleted to 
prevent cldy unwarranted 
inMsionof~alpri~y 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
(6, . 
.,." 
P 
Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: APR 0 3 2006 
WAC 05 029 53632 
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. 4 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. 
L;"+ 
obert P. Wie ann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California 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 is a corporation organized in the State of California in March 2000. It claims to manufacture, 
import, and wholesale rugs. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its 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 September 22, 2005, determining that the petitioner had not established that: 
(1) the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the United States entity; or 
(2) a qualifying relationship existed between the petitioner the beneficiary's foreign employer. 
On the Form I-290B Notice of Appeal, filed October 27, 2005,' counsel for the petitioner indicated that a 
brief and/or evidence would be submitted within 30 days. On February 23,2006, the AAO contacted counsel 
by facsimile to request that counsel acknowledge whether the brief and/or evidence were subsequently 
submitted, and, if applicable, to afford counsel an opportunity to re-submit the documents. Counsel has not 
responded to the request as of this date. Accordingly, the record will be considered complete. The statement 
on the Form I-290B reads: 
The director denied the Form I 140, Petition for a Immigrant Petition [sic] for Alien Worker, 
as an intra-company transferee stating that petitioner has not established that beneficiary is an 
executive or a manager. The Director also found that there was no qualifying relationship 
between Petitioner and the Beneficiary. Both of the arguments are erroneous because first, 
the record will show that Beneficiary's duties comply with the definition of a manager as well 
as an executive pursuant to the previsions [sic] of 8 C.F.R. and secondly, Petitioner is a 
subsidiary of the mother company. This has been hlly documented but the Service has failed 
to fully comprehend. An appeal brief will follow in 30 days as from this notice. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) 
 Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
The notice of decision denying the petitioner's Form 1-140 petition is dated September 22, 2005. The record 
of proceeding also contains a notice of decision denying the beneficiary's Form 1-485, Application to Register 
Permanent Residence or Adjust Status which references the "September 30, 2005" denial of the underlying 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. Due to the inconsistencies regarding the actual decision 
date of the Form 1-140, the AAO will not reject this appeal as untimely. See 8 C.F.R § 103.3(a)(2)(i). 
(C) 
 Certain Multinational Executives and Managers. 
 -- An alien is described in this 
subparagraph if the alien, in the 3 years preceding the time of the alien's application 
for classification and admission into the United States under this subparagraph, has 
been employed for at least 1 year by a firm or corporation or other legal entity or an 
affiliate or subsidiary thereof and who seeks to enter the United States in order to 
continue to render services to the same employer or to a subsidiary or affiliate thereof 
in a capacity that is managerial or executive. 
The language of the statute is specific in limiting this provision to only those executives and managers who 
have previously worked for the firm, corporation or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary of that 
entity, and are coming to the United States to work for the same entity, or its affiliate or subsidiary. 
A United States employer may file a petition on Form 1-140 for classification of an alien under section 
203(b)(l)(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. No labor certification is required for this 
classification. The prospective employer in the United States must furnish a job offer in the form of a 
statement that indicates that the alien is to be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity. Such a statement must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the alien. See 8 C.F.R. 
9 204.5Cj)(5). 
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." Counsel's reiteration of the director's decision and assertion that the 
arguments are erroneous are insufficient as a basis for the appeal. The unsupported statements of counsel on 
appeal or in a motion are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight. See INS v. 
Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 188-89 n.6 (1984); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1980). 
Inasmuch as the petitioner does not identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact 
as a basis for the appeal, the regulations mandate the summary dismissal of the appeal. 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. 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. 5 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.