dismissed EB-1C Case: Yachting

identifying data deleted to 
Pevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of mna1 privacy* / 
PUBLIC COPY 
. , 
U.S. ~k~artment of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
49 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: MAR 3 1 7006 
. LIN 04 151 50151 
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. 3 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
 , 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
- Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center. The 
matter is Low before the Administrative Appeals Office (MO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
The petitioner is a limited liability company organized in the state of Illinois. It is engaged in the business of 
constructing, owning, managing, and chartering yachts. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as captain of its 
motor yacht. 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. 
5 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. The director denied the petition based on three 
grounds of ineligibility: 1) the beneficiary would not be employed in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity; 2) the petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence to establish that it has a qualifying 
relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer; and 3) the petitioner failed to establish that it had been 
doing business for at least one year prior to filing the instant Form 1-140. 
On appeal, counsel disputes the first two of the director's findings and states that the petitioner is currently in 
the process of gathering documentation to overcome both grounds of dismissal. Counsel requests an 
additional 30 days in which to submit the additional information and/or documentation.' Counsel made no 
mention of the director's third ground for denying the petition. It is noted that the AAO has not received any 
further submissions addressing any of the director's grounds for denial. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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. 
Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of 
fact in this proceeding, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
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. 5 1361. Inasmuch as counsel 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 will be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed. 
' On February 21,2006, the AAO sent a fax to counsel. The fax advised counsel that no evidence or brief had 
ever been receded in this matter and requested that counsel submit a copy of the brief and/or additional 
evidence, if in fact such evidence had been submitted, within five business days. As of the date of this 
* 
 decision, the AAO has received no response from counsel or the petitioner.