dismissed EB-1C Case: Unknown

PUBLIC COpy 
DA TE: JUN 1 It 2012 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Setvices 
Office of Administrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1)(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 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 AAO inappropriately appliui ~he 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 with 
the field office or service center that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, 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)(1)(i) 
requires any motion to be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~rryl,rh~;------67 
~hief' Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
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 
rejected. 
The director denied the petition because the self-petitioner did not submit the required initial evidence 
and supporting documentation with the F onn 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. On appeal, 
the self-petitioner submits supporting documentation for the petition. 
The appeal will be rejected, as both the petition and the appeal was filed by the beneficiary. The 
beneficiary signed and filed the Fonn 1-290R Notice of Appeal. An appeal may not be filed by the 
beneficiary of the underlying petition; usels regulations specifically state that a beneficiary of a visa 
petition is not a recognized party in a proceeding. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(3). As the beneficiary is not a 
recognized party, the beneficiary is not authorized to file an appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(I)(iii)(B). 
Additionally, the beneficiary is named as both the petitioner and the beneficiary on the petition, and he 
also signed the Fonn 1-140. In effect, the beneficiary appears to be seeking to self-petition. First­
preference immigrant status under section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § I 153(b)(1)(C), requires 
that the beneficiary have a pennanent employment offer from aU .S. petitioner. A petitioner who is a 
nonimmigrant temporary worker is not competent to offer pennanent employment to an alien 
beneficiary for the purpose of obtaining an immigrant visa for the beneficiary under section 
203(b)(1)(C) of the Act. Matter o/Thornhill, 18 r&N Dec. 34 (Comm'r 1981). 
In addition, even if the correct person had filed the appeal, the appeal would still be dismissed since 
the documentation submitted in support of the petition is not sufficient evidence to establish eligibility 
for the immigrant petition. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter o/SofJici, 22 I&N 
Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter o/Treasure Craft o/California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm. 1972)). 
As the affected party did not file the appeal, the appeal must be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.