dismissed EB-1C Case: Transportation Services

~~
\\0 ldentifjhi,g::~~-'(;,;: Jdeted to
prevent clearly lirr)varr~ted
ihvasionof personalpnvaq)
PUBLICcopy
V,S. Department of Homeland Security
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000
Washington, DC 20529
u.s.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
FILE:
EAC 05 058 52012
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: "AY 0 8 2111
INRE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to
Section 203(b)(l)(C) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 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.
!au- ///ejRobert P.Wi=
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
'..
Page 2
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the employment-based petition. The matter is
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed.
The petitioner filed the instant immigrant petition to classify the beneficiary as a multinational manager or
executive pursuant to section 203(b)(I)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c.
§ 1153(b)(1 )(C). The petitioner. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
New York that is engaged in offering transportation services. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary
as its·president.
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary
would be employed by the United States entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity.
The petitioner filed a timely appeal on April 3, 2006. On the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal, the petitioner
requests sixty days within which to submit a brief and documentary evidence, and references an enclosed
letter, dated March 30, 2006, in which the petitioner's vice-president states:
I [ ] am confident that the company, operating in the United States met the requirements for
an approval of [the] 1-140 immigrant visa petition [filed] on behalf of [the beneficiary].
The documents submitted have shown the adequate strength of the companies operations in
the United States and Republic of Belarus. [The beneficiary] is the sole owner of the
foreign company, the [p]etitioner, and the [p]etitioner's subsidiary. He exercises his
authority to establish [the] companies' goals and policies, make decisions on behalf of the
companies related to its [sic] directions and operations, and negotiate on behalf of, and
contractually bond the companies. As a [p]resident of [the petitioning entity], [the
petitioner's subsidiary], and [the foreign entity,] [the beneficiary] has shown sufficient
responsibility for fulfillment of a variety of managerial and executive duties.
As of this date, the petitioner has notsubmitted any additional documentation. The AAO notes that on March'
26, 2007, a request was sent to the petitioner via facsimile for an appellate brief or additional evidence. The
petitioner did not respond to the AAO's request. Accordingly, the record will be considered complete.
To establish eligibility under section 203(b)( 1)(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. The broad
and unsupported claims made by the petitioner in its March 30, 2006 letter fail t6 address any specific
managerial or executive job duties to be performed' by the beneficiary, a deficiency that had been raised by
the director in his March I, 2006 decision. The petitioner also fails to acknowledge, much less resolve, the
inadequacies discussed by the director with respect to the petitioner's staffing levels. The petitioner's general
objections to the denial ofthe petition; without identifying any specific errors on the part of the director, are
simply insu~ficient to overcome the well-founded and logical conclusions the director reached based on the
evidence submitted by the petitioner. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not
'.,
Page 3
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec.
158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 l&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm ..
1972)).
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(I)(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.
Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of
fact in this proceeding, the appeal must be summarily dismissed.
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. § 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden.
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.