dismissed EB-1C Case: Travel

DATE DEC 0 8 2012 OFFICE TEXAS SER VICE CENTER 
IN RE: 
u.s. Dcpartnlt'nt uf lIomt"land S{'curit~ 
ll, S. Citi/cn~hir dnd Illlllli~ration Scn'icc" 
AJlllllli~lrall\'l' f\pp":~II;., on i~'''' 1 A ,\0) 
10 .\b~""Ll\lI~l'lh '\\',',. \,\\ .. ;"1.', ~(l'J(l 
\\<1;..1\111:->:1\111. DC ~()S~l)_.::'()l)(1 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive Of ~\'l<lllagl'J" Pur..,Ll<lnt to 
Section 203(b)( I )(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 US.C ~ 1153(bH I He) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of Ihe Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of Ihe docuillents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made 10 that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have addilional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen with 
the field office or service center that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-2908. NOlice of Appeal 
or Motion, wilh a fee of £6}0. The specific requiremenls for filing such a motion can he found al H CF.R. 
* 103.5. Do not file any motion directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 CF.R. ~ Im.5(a)( I Hi) 
requires any motion to be filed within }O days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief. Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director. Texas Service Center. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal'" ill 
be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner is a travel agency that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its General Manager. 
Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based 
immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)( I )(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act). 
8 U.S.C * 1153(b)(I )(C). as a multinational executive or manager. 
On October 5. 20 II. the director denied the immigrant petition concluding the following: (I) the 
petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary's employment abroad was within a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity; (2) the petitioner failed to establish that it would employ the 
beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity; and, (3) the petitioner failed to cstabli.sh that it 
had the ability to pay the proffcred wage at the time the priority date was established. 
On November 7. 2011. counsel for the petitioner submitted the Form 1-2<)OB, Notice of" Appeal 
or Motion, to appeal the director's denial. Counsel marked the box at part two of the Form 1-
2<)OB to indicate that a brief and/or additional evidence will be submitted to the AAO within 30 
days. More than 30 days have passed and the record indicates that the petitioner did not rile a 
brief or supplemental evidence as of this date. Thus, the AAO deems the record complete as 
currentl y constituted and ready for adjudication. 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party 
concemcd fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for 
the appeal. 8 CF.R. * 103.3(a)(1 )(v). 
In regards to the director's conclusion that the petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence to 
show the beneficiary'S eligibility for the immigrant petition. counsel for the petitioner fails to 
identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact as a basis for the appcal. Further. 
the petitioner failed to provide any additional to overcome the director's concerns. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter o( S,!/Jici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comlll'r IYYH) 
(citing Matter o(TreaslIre Crafi o(Calijc)rnia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. COllllll'r 1972)). 
As the petitioner has failed to identify an erroneous conclusion of law or statelllcnt of I'act as a 
basis for the appeal, the appeal will be summarily dismissed in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 
* 103.3(a)(\ )(v). 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 2<) I of the Act. 
8 U.S.C § 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.