dismissed EB-1C Case: Automotive

identieing data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of IIomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave.. N.W.. Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: LIN 06 093 52048 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
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. 8 1 153(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. 
&+Add 
PRO ert P. W emann, Chief 
/ Administrative Appeals Ofice 
LIN 06 093 52048 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based visa petition. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner filed the 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 I 153(b)(l)(C). The petitioner is a corporation headquartered in the State of Michigan that is engaged in the 
marketing and distribution of vehicles throughout the United States. The petitioner seeks to employ the 
beneficiary as its "Team Leader, Audi Product Support & Dealer Technician Help." 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary 
had been and would be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
On the Form I-290B, counsel states: 
The 1-140, Immigrant Petition, filed by [the petitioner] on behalf of [the beneficiary] was 
denied on the basis that it was not clearly established that [the beneficiary] was a 
multinational manager. However, as the record indicates, [the beneficiary] currently 
manages a group of 26 individuals, at least 6 of whom are university-degreed professionals 
and is responsible for an annual budget of $3.6 million. 
Prior to his transfer to the U.S., [the beneficiary] also served in a managerial capacity, with 
four reports who were university-degreed professionals (some with advanced degrees) and 
one managerial report, the Technical Development Manager. 
[United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)] ignored the information and 
evidence provided in denying the 1-140, Immigrant Petition, on behalf of [the beneficiary]. 
We respectfully request that the AAO reverse the [USCIS'] decision and approved [sic] the 
1-140, Immigrant Petition, filed by [the petitioner] on behalf of [the beneficiary]. 
On May 7, 2007, the AAO sent a notice to counsel via facsimile requesting confirmation as to whether an 
additional brief or evidence was filed in support of the instant appeal. Counsel responded on the same day, 
stating that while a brief had not been submitted, "evidence was provided." Counsel did not clarify in her 
May 7,2007 response whether her statements on the Form I-290B constituted the entire "evidence" submitted 
in support of the appeal. Other than counsel's statements on the Form I-290B, the record does not contain 
additional evidence in support the requested immigrant visa. Accordingly, the record will be considered 
complete. 
To establish eligibility under section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act, the petitioner must meet certain criteria. 
Specifically, within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, a 
firm, corporation, or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof, must have employed the 
beneficiary for one continuous year. Furthermore, the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States to 
continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial 
or executive capacity. 
LIN 06 093 52048 
Page 3 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. Counsel's 
brief statements on the Form I-290B fail to acknowledge, much less resolve, the inadequacies that are 
discussed in great detail in the director's denial. In both his request for evidence and July 19, 2006 decision, 
the director emphasized the petitioner's failure to provide "a detailed, comprehensive description" of the 
specific managerial or executive duties associated with the beneficiary's former or present positions, 
specifically observing that the petitioner submitted essentially the same job descriptions in its response to his 
request for evidence as those originally offered with the initial filing. The AAO emphasizes that the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.56)(3)(ii) authorizes the director to request additional evidence in appropriate 
cases. The purpose of the request for evidence is to elicit further information that clarifies whether eligibility 
for the benefit sought has been established, as of the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. $$ 103.2(b)(8) 
and (12). A petitioner's failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be 
grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(14). 
The AAO notes the relevance of the requested evidence to the analysis of the two issues in this proceeding. 
For example, based on the description of the beneficiary's position in the United States, the beneficiary would 
spend 50 percent of his time serving as a team leader, and managing and directing the product support and 
technical helpline teams. Despite the director's request, the petitioner did not offer a more detailed job 
description, or an explanation of the managerial or executive job duties associated with his purported 
management of subordinate teams. The limited statements pertaining to the beneficiary's employment do not 
demonstrate that he performed or would perform 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, 
1 108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Counsel's general objections to the denial of the petition, without identifying any specific errors on the part of 
the director, are simply insufficient to overcome the well-founded and logical conclusions the director 
reached based on the evidence submitted by the petitioner. The beneficiary's purported management of 
university-degreed professionals addresses only one condition in establishing employment in a "managerial 
capacity," and falls significantly short of demonstrating the beneficiary's eligibility for classification as a 
multinational manager or executive. See tj 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. Moreover, counsel's mere claims of a 
university education are not sufficient to establish that a portion of the beneficiary's subordinate employees is 
professional. See generally Matter of Sea, 19 I&N Dec. 8 17 (Comm. 1988); Matter of Ling, 13 I&N Dec. 35 
(R.C. 1968); Matter of Shin, 11 I&N Dec. 686 (D.D. 1966) (instructing that because the term "profession" 
contemplates knowledge or learning, not merely skill, of an advanced type in a given field gained by a 
prolonged course of specialized instruction and study of at least baccalaureate level, which is a realistic 
prerequisite to entry into the particular field of endeavor, the appropriate analysis of a "professional" for 
purposes of classification as a multinational manager or executive is the level of education required by the 
position, rather than the degree held by a subordinate employee). The unsupported statements of counsel on 
appeal or in a motion are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight. See INS v. 
Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183,188-89 n.6 (1984); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1980). 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(I)(v) state, in pertihent part: 
LIN 06 093 52048 
Page 4 
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 counsel has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a 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. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.