dismissed EB-1C Case: Trust Fund Management

k 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent cl~~il> ~iwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
qfflce of Administrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 - 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
JUL 2 7 2010 
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: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
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 to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reachng our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5. 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. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
/ Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas 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 under the laws of the State of Florida that claims to be 
involved in the management of a trust fund and guardianship of a minor. It seeks to employ the 
beneficiary as its managing director. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classifL 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 on March 12, 2009, determining that the petitioner had not 
established that (1) the beneficiary would be employed in a primarily managerial or executive 
capacity by the United States entity, (2) the beneficiary was employed in a primarily managerial or 
executive capacity abroad for at least one year during the three years preceding the filing of the 
petition, or (3) that there is a qualifying relationship between the U.S. petitioner and a foreign 
employer of the beneficiary. 
In his decision, the director noted that as a guardianship of a minor, the company, and more 
specifically, the beneficiary, is currently in charge of various aspects OF his child's medical and 
financial care. The director found that "[gliven the nature and size of the company, the evidence 
does not establish that the firm possesses the organizational complexity to warrant having an 
employee who primarily performs executive or managerial duties." Further, the director found the 
petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary has been employed in a managerial or executive 
capacity with a foreign entity. In fact, there is no evidence of a foreign entity that employed the 
beneficiary and that has a qualifying relationship with the U.S. petitioner. The director noted that 
"while the Service understands this is a unique situation in that the beneficiary is managing a trust 
fund for their disabled daughter, the filing of this petition as a Multinational Executive or Manager is 
not the proper classification" and that "eligibility for the desired classification has not been 
established and the petition cannot be approved." 
On the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal, counsel for the petitioner simply states, "In this unusual 
factual situation, the firm does possess to [sic] organizational complexity to warrant a managerial 
employee." However, counsel presents no further statement or evidence in support of this claim. To 
the contrary, in a brief subsequently filed, counsel concedes that "the Appellants are not contesting 
the Decision's determination that Beneficiary does not qualify for approval on the basis of being a 
Multinational Executive or Manager of a foreign corporation." Counsel does not contend that the 
director's decision is otherwise erroneous. Instead, counsel suggests that "there exist other valid 
bases for positive consideration of [the] petition, namely humanitarian and extreme hardship 
grounds." Counsel indicates that the petitioner and beneficiary are in the process of applying for a 
permanent labor certification and will file another Form 1-140 immigrant petition on that basis, and 
only seek to remain in the United States under this classification in the interim, until another lawfbl 
basis for his stay in the United States can be pursued. Counsel fbrther asserts that the petition should 
be approved on the basis of "extreme hardship," citing to a line of cases that considers the 
application of the "extreme hardship" exception in cancellation of removal petitions. 
Page 3 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's conclusion and affirms the denial of the petition. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 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." 
Here, the petitioner has not identified any erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in the 
director's decision as a basis for the appeal. In fact, counsel expressly states on appeal that the 
petitioner is not contesting the director's determination that the beneficiary does not qualify for 
classification as a multinational executive or manager. As such, the regulations mandate the 
summary dismissal of the appeal. 
The AAO recognizes the beneficiary's difficult situation with respect to the care of his disabled 
daughter. However, the discretionary consideration based on the "extreme hardship" standard to 
which counsel refers is not applicable to this classification, nor do the statutes and regulations allow 
for approval of the present petition on humanitarian grounds when the criteria for eligibility set forth 
in the statute have not been met. 
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. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.