dismissed EB-1C Case: Wholesale, Retail, And Investment

• • 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal pnvaq 
l'tJBL1C COpy 
DATE: MAY 12 2011 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u. S. Ci tizenshi p 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)( I )(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U .S.c. § lI53(b)( I )(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 reaching 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. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § I03.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry hew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
· . 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was initially approved by the Director, Vermont Service Center. 
Upon further review of the record, the Director, Texas Service Center, determined that the petitioner was not 
eligible for the benefit sought. Accordingly, the director properly served the petitioner with a notice of his 
intention to revoke the approval of the preference visa petition, and his reasons therefore. The director 
ultimately revoked the approval of the petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 
(AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner claimed to be a wholesale; retail, and investment operation seeking to employ the beneficiary 
as its president. 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. 
§ I IS3(b)( I )(C), as a multinational executive or manager. The director revoked the petition based on three 
grounds of ineligibility. The director determined that I) the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary 
was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity; 2) the petitioner failed to establish 
that the beneficiary's proposed position with the U.S. entity would be in a managerial or executive capacity; 
and 3) the petitioner failed to establish that it continues to do business in the United States. Additionally, as a 
result of the beneficiary's interview at the New York District Office, the director found the petitioner 
submitted inconsistent evidence and thus concluded that the evidence was unreliable and insufficient for the 
purpose of establishing eligibility. 
On appeal, counsel provides an overview of the procedural events that have taken place since the petitioner 
filed the Form 1-140 and indicates that a brief and/or additional information would be submitted to the AAO 
in support of the appeal within 30 days. The AAO notes, however, that the record does not show that any 
further evidence or information has been provided in support of the appeal since the November 23, 2010 
filing. Accordingly, the record will be considered complete as currently constituted. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(J)(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. 
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. Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify 
specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in this proceeding, the petitioner has not 
sustained that burden. Therefore, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.