dismissed EB-1C Case: Wholesale Food

(b)(6)
DATE : SEP 0 9 2013 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Departm ent of Homeland Securi ty 
U.S. Citi zens hip and Jrnrnigrati on Servi ces 
Adm inistrative Appeals Off ice (AAO) 
20 M.assach usc tts Ave .. N.\V., JVIS 2090 
Wa s h in ~ron. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigrati on 
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. § 1 I 53(b)(l )(C). 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your cas e. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-prec edent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision . Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5. Do not tile a motion directly with the AAO . 
Thank you, 
t~ JRon:t:.g 
Chief, Administrative Appeal s Office 
www .uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will summarily dismiss the 
appeal. 
The petitioner, a California corporation , is self-described as a wholesale food purcha ser and it seeks to 
employ the beneficiary as its Store Manager. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors 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. § ll53(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that it will employ the 
beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. In denying the petition , the director emphasized 
that the petitioner failed to provide detailed position descriptions for the beneficiary and his subordinates, 
despite the director's issuance of a request for evidence (RFE) with specific instructions to submit such 
information. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, 
the petitioner states that it "mistakenly did not 
supply all of the information requested by the director," and acknowledges that the lack of evidence 
contributed in large part to the director's decision to deny the petition. In support of the appeal, the petitioner 
provides more detailed position descriptions for the beneficiary and his subordinate employees and "some 
random photographs" of the petitioner's physical premises. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) state, in pertinent part: 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the patty 
concerned fails to identify specif ically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact 
for the appeal. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. Neither the 
petitioner nor counsel has identified any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact as a basis for the 
appeal. In fact, the petitioner does not contend that the director's decision was incorrect based on the evidence 
of record; the petitioner specifically acknowledges that it failed to submit evidence that was needed in order 
for the director to reach a favorable determination. The petitioner now submits the detailed position 
descriptions that were previously requested. 
Where, as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an 
opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on 
appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter ofObaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 
(BIA 1988). If the petitioner had wanted the submitted evidence to be considered, it should have submitted 
the document s in response to the director's request for evidence. !d. Under the circumstances, the AAO need 
not and does not consider the sufficiency of the evidence submitted on appeal. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
(BIA 2013). Inasmuch as the petitioner has not identified specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or 
statement of fact in support of the appeal, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.