dismissed EB-1C Case: Transportation And Shipping

(b)(6)
DATE: AUG 1 5 2013 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE : Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S . Citizens hip and Imm igration Services 
Administ rati.ve Appeals Office (i\AO) 
20 Massach usetts Ave., N.W. , MS 2090 
Washing ton, DC 20529-2 090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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. § 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF 
OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. This is a non­
precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency policy 
through non-precedent decisions. 
Thank you, 
L~ 
/-Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis .gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service 
Center. The petitioner filed an appeal seeking review by the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) . The AAO 
dismissed the appeal. The matter is again before the AAO on a second appeal. The appeal will be rejected. 
The petitioner filed this petition 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)(1 )(C), as a 
multinational executive or manager. The petitioner , a Connecticut corporation, is self-de scribed as a 
transportation and shipping business. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its President. 
The director denied the petition on the basis that the petitioner failed to establish: (1) that it would employ the 
beneficiary in a primarily managerial or executive capacity; and (2) that it has a qualifying relationship with 
the beneficiary's foreign employer. The petitioner appealed the director's decision to the AAO . The AAO 
dismissed the appeal and denied the petition .' 
The matter is once again before the AAO . As indicated by the check mark at box B of Part 2 of the Form 
I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, the petitioner elected to file an appeal. The AAO reviewed the 
submission and finds that the petitioner's appeal must be rejected . The AAO does not exercise appellate 
jurisdiction over AAO decisions. The authority to adjudicate appeals is delegated to the AAO by the 
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) pursuant to the authority vested in her through the 
Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296. See DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 
2003) ; see also 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003). The AAO exercises appellate jurisdiction over the matters described at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.l(f)(3)(iii) (as in effect on February 28, 2003), with one exception- petitions for approval of 
schools under § 214.3 are now the responsibility of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The 
regulations limit the AAO's jurisdiction over petitions for temporary worker s to those described under 8 
C.F.R. §§ 214.2 and 214.6. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.l(f)(3)(iii)(J) (2003). Accordingly, the appeal is not properly 
before the AAO . 
Further, we note that even if the appeal were properly before the AAO, regulations would require that it be 
summarily dismissed. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part: 
1 In the decision dated March 11, 2013, the AAO advised the petitioner that it had the option of filing a 
motion to reopen or reconsider the AAO's decision. The AAO 
stated : 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision , or you have 
additional information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider 
or a motion to reopen in accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion , with a fee of $630 . The specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5 . Do not file any motion directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 
C.F.R. 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 30 days of the decision that the 
motion seeks to reconsider or reopen . 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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. 
The petitioner states on the Form I-290B that additional documentation is to be provided within 30 days that 
will "address and overcome each of the above issues" discussed in the denial. The petitioner filed the appeal 
on April 11, 2013. As of this date, no brief or additional evidence has been submitted, and the petitioner has 
not identified any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact that would form the basis of its appeal. 
The AAO does not exercise appellate jurisdiction over AAO decisions. Accordingly , the appeal must be 
rejected . 8 
C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(l). 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.