dismissed EB-1C Case: Architecture

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W.. Rn1. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
17 
$, f8 
, / , L.- 
f-+' 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
 OCT 6 5 2006 
SRC 04 0 17 53754 
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: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
Robert P. ~iernann, Chief 
kdministntive Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based petition. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed the instant immigrant visa petition to classify the beneficiary as a multinational manager 
or executive pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
5 1153(b)(l)(C). The petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida that is 
engaged in providing architectural consulting services. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as its 
architect. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner had not demonstrated that: (1) the beneficiary 
had been employed abroad or would be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive 
capacity; or (2) a qualifying relationship existed between the foreign and United States entities at the time of 
filing. 
On Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal, filed by the petitioner on August 23,2005, the petitioner contends: 
Your decision was based on unclear facts which can be proven on our part that both 
[c]ompanies belong to the same owners - in Venezuela and the United States; also, the 
beneficiary has a managerlexecutive position which can be detailed in the [percentage] of 
work spent at the job and the responsibilities involved in order to maintain the operation of 
the business in the United States, even though [the beneficiary] is an [alrchitect as a 
profession and conduct some of the work in the field. 
The petitioner requested an additional ninety days from the time of filing the appeal within which to submit 
an appellate brief and documentary evidence. As of this date, no additional evidence has been submitted. On 
September 13, 2006, the AAO attempted to send a notice to the petitioner via facsimile requesting the 
petitioner's appellate brief and evidence, however the two facsimile numbers noted in the record were either 
disconnected or no longer in service. As it is now more than one year after the appeal date, the record as 
presently constituted will be considered complete. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(C) Certain Multinational Executives and Managers. - An alien is 
described in this subparagraph if the alien, in the 3 years preceding the time 
of the alien's application for classification and admission into the United 
States under this subparagraph, has been employed for at least 1 year by a 
firm or corporation or other legal entity or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof 
and who seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to render 
services to the same employer or to a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a 
capacity that is managerial or executive. 
Page 3 
The language of the statute is specific in limiting this provision to only those executives or managers who 
have previously worked for the firm, corporation or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary of that 
entity, and are coming to the United States to work for the same entity, or its affiliate or subsidiary. 
A United States employer may file a petition on Form 1-140 for classification of an alien under section 
203(b)(l)(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. No labor certification is required for this 
classification. The prospective employer in the United States must furnish a job offer in the form of a 
statement, which indicates that the alien is to be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity. Such a statement must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the alien. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision. 
 The petitioner's general objections to the 
director's denial, without specifically addressing the beneficiary's eligibility for the requested immigrant 
classification, are insufficient to overcome the well-founded and logical conclusions the director reached 
based on a review of the record. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of 
Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
Contrary to the petitioner's assertion on appeal, the record contains inconsistencies and deficiencies in the 
ownership of the foreign and United States entities that prevent a finding of the claimed affiliate relationship. 
The petitioner initially claimed that it is a subsidiary of the foreign entity, yet in response to the director's 
request for evidence submitted two stock certificates, neither of which identified the foreign entity as a 
shareholder. In fact, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Schedule K, Shareholder's Share of Income, Credits, 
Deductions, for the years 2002 through 2004 identify the beneficiary as the sole shareholder of the United 
States organization. The AAO notes that the record does not contain documentary evidence that the 
beneficiary is a majority shareholder of the foreign entity. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any 
inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such 
inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where 
the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 -92 (BIA 1988). Absent clarification and documentation 
of the petitioner's true ownership, as well as evidence establishing the ownership of the foreign entity, the 
AAO cannot conclude that a qualifying relationship exists between the foreign and United States entities. 
Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
The record also contains insufficient documentation corroborating the petitioner's claim that the beneficiary 
had been employed by the foreign entity and would be employed by the United States entity in a primarily 
managerial or executive capacity. 
The record contains only a limited description of the job duties performed by the beneficiary as an architect of 
the foreign entity. The petitioner did not identify what "projects" the beneficiary managed, or explain how the 
beneficiary's responsibility of "releasing activities related to [architectural] design, project and supervision" 
constitutes employment in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. Reciting the beneficiary's vague job 
responsibilities or broadly-cast business objectives is not sufficient; the regulations require a detailed 
description of the beneficiary's daily job duties. The petitioner has failed to answer a critical question in this 
case: What does the beneficiary primarily do on a daily basis? The actual duties themselves will reveal the 
true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), 
affd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Additionally, the vague job duties outlined by the petitioner with respect to the beneficiary's position in the 
United States company are not sufficient to substantiate the petitioner's claim that the beneficiary would 
occupy a position that is primarily managerial or executive in nature. The petitioner stated only that the 
beneficiary would "[rlelease daily activities," supervise and initiate projects, meet with clients and supervise 
employees. Again, the actual duties themselves reveal the true nature of the employment. Id. at 1108. Case 
law dictates that a petitioner's blanket claim of employing the beneficiary as a manager or executive without a 
description of how, when, where and with whom the beneficiary's job duties occurred is insufficient for 
establishing employment in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. Id. 
 Moreover, the petitioner, 
noting in separate correspondence to the AAO that the beneficiary would hold the positions of architect and 
president, has not clarified the beneficiary's true role in the United States entity. The petitioner is obligated to 
clarify the inconsistent and conflicting testimony by independent and objective evidence. Matter of Ho, 19 
I&N Dec. 582,591 -92 (BIA 1988). 
Based on the above discussion, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary was employed by the 
foreign entity or would be employed by the United States organization in a primarily managerial or executive 
capacity. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
The AAO further notes that the petitioner has not established its ability to pay the beneficiary's proposed 
annual salary as required in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). For this additional reason, the petition 
will be denied. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by 
the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. 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. tj 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.