dismissed EB-1C Case: Automobile Repair

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarr~nted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
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. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
FEB 2 2 2012 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. § 1153(b)(1)(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. 
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 I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1 )(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
cQ@,---
PerryRhew 
Chief, 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 dismissed. 
The petitioner is a Florida corporation engaged in "automobile repair and servicing", and it seeks to 
employ the beneficiary as its president and general manager. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to 
classifY the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(1 )(C) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C), as a multinational executive or 
manager. 
The director denied the petition based on the determination that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary would be employed by the petitioner in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On March 30,2010, the petitioner filed an appeal seeking review of the director's decision. The petitioner 
disagreed with the director's finding and indicated that an appellate brief would be submitted further 
expounding on the specific grounds for disputing the denial. The AAO received a supplemental statement 
on April 26, 2010, along with a letter from the petitioner's Director/Chief Mechanic outlining the 
beneficiary's duties with the petitioner. 
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. 
Ifthe alien is already in the United States working for the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the 
entity that employed the alien overseas, the petitioner must establish that the alien was employed by the 
entity abroad for at least one year in a managerial or executive capacity in the three years preceding entry 
as a nonimmigrant. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B). Unlike the nonimmigrant L-l visa, this immigrant visa 
classification makes no provision for an alien who was employed abroad as a non-managerial L-IB 
"specialized knowledge" employee. Cf 8 C.F.R. § 2l4.2(l)(3)(iv) ("the work in the United States need 
not be the same work which the alien performed abroad"). 
Page 3 
The beneficiary entered the United States as an L-IA worker in June 2003 to work as the president and 
general manager for the United States subsidiary. In support ofthe Form 1-140, the petitioner submitted a 
statement dated July 27, 2006 that listed the beneficiary's job responsibilities in his proposed employment 
with the petitioning entity. The director subsequently requested additional information about the 
proposed job duties and a percentage break-down for each duty. In response, the petitioner provided 
similar duties as previously submitted with a percentage break-down for each duty. In the director's 
decision, dated February 25, 2010, she noted that the duties listed are "so generalized and vague, they 
provide little evidentiary value." In addition, the percentages assigned for each duty totaled to more than 
1 00 percent and the percentages overlapped for several duties. The percentages in the job description 
totaled to 460% which makes it impossible to determine how much time the beneficiary actually spent on 
each duty. 
In addition, the director noted that the petitioner employed only two certified mechanics/technicians who 
were the beneficiary and one other employee. The director further noted that since the petitioner is 
engaged in "automotive repair and servicing" and only employed two mechanics, including the 
beneficiary, it appears that the beneficiary would be performing mechanical work for the petitioner. 
On appeal, the petitioner reiterates the job description submitted previously and simply states that the 
director erred in concluding that the beneficiary will perform mechanical work. The petitioner states that 
it employs five personnel; however, the petitioner does not explain how the other employees will provide 
the services offered by the petitioner to run the business when none of the other employees are certified to 
provide mechanical repairs. 
In addition, the petitioner provided the same job duties with a new breakdown of percentages of time 
spent on each duty to now total to 100 percent. The petitioner did not explain why the previous job 
percentages totaled to 460% when now it totals to 100 %. On appeal, a petitioner cannot offer a new 
position to the beneficiary, or materially change a position's title, its level of authority within the 
organizational hierarchy, or the associated job responsibilities. The petitioner must establish that the 
position offered to the beneficiary when the petition was filed merits classification as a managerial or 
executive position. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg. Comm'r 1978). A 
petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to 
USCIS requirements. See Matter oflzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169,176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
The director's denial decision also noted that the evidence submitted to establish a qualifying relationship 
between the petitioner and the employer abroad is conflicting. The director noted that the petitioner 
stated that it is owned 51 % by foreign employer) and 49% by 
which is corroborated by the stock certificates submitted by the petitioner. 
However, the director also noted that the U.S. Corporation Income Tax Returns for 2005 and 2006 
indicate that the beneficiary is the owner of 100% of the common stock of the corporation. On appeal, 
the petitioner simply states that "the petitioner's ownership is reflected by the presented stock certificates 
distribution, 49% owned by the beneficiary and 51 % owned by " The 
petitioner did not explain the inconsistent statements made on the federal tax forms and the stock 
certificates. The petitioner is obligated to clarify the inconsistent and conflicting testimony by 
independent and objective evidence. Matter of Ro, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998). 
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. The petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.