dismissed EB-1C Case: Textile Industry

U.S. Department of IIomeland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Bt 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: DEC 1 9 2008 
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: 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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider, as required by 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
3') 
43,q-i;p?z4xL- 
John F. Gnssom, Acting Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 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 2003 and claims to be engaged in the business of providing 
sourcing services within the textile industry.' It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its president. 
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. 
5 1 153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. The director denied the petition based on 
the petitioner's failure to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
The petitioner submitted an appeal indicating that a brief and/or additional information would be 
submitted within 30 days in support of the appeal. The AAO's current review of the appeal shows 
that the record of proceeding has not been supplemented with additional evidence or information 
since the appeal was filed on February 29, 2008. Accordingly, the record will be considered 
complete as currently constituted. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103,3(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. 4 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. 
' It is noted that the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations shows that the petitioner was administratively 
dissolved and, therefore, was inactive as of September 26,2008. Therefore, the petitioner's continued existence as an 
entity is brought into question.