dismissed EB-1C Case: Automotive Sales

(b)(6)
DATE: JUL 2 9 2013 
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. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
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. § l153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative 
Appeals Office (AAO) in your 
case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion 
to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form l-290B) within 33 
days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at http://www.uscis.gov/forms 
for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do 
not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
f~~~ive Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center ("the 
director"). The director dismissed the petitioner's subsequent motion to reopen and reconsider. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The 
petitioner is a Florida company engaged in the sale of automobiles and aquatic vehicles. It seeks to employ 
the beneficiary as its President & 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)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary's proposed 
employment with the U.S. entity would be in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or that the 
beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, counsel disputes the director's findings and provides an appellate brief laying out the grounds for 
challenging the denial. 
I. THELAW 
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. 
The language of the statute is specific in limiting this provision to only those executives and 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 I-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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
classification. The prospective employer in the United States must furnish a job offer in the form of a statement 
that 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. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5). 
II. THE ISSUES ON APPEAL 
A. Managerial or Executive Position in the United States 
The first issue in this proceeding is whether the petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to establish that it 
will employ the beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
Section l0l(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(44)(A), provides: 
The term "managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization m which the 
employee primarily--
(i) manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or 
component of the organization ; 
(ii) supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees, or manages an essential function within the 
organization, or a department or subdivision of the organization; 
(iii) if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the 
authority to hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel 
actions (such as promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee 
is directly supervised, functions at a senior level within the organizational 
hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and 
(iv) exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or function 
for which the employee has authority. A first-line supervisor is not 
considered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the 
supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are 
professional. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(44)(B) , provides: 
The term "executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee 
primarily--
(b)(6)
Page4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(i) directs the management of the organization or a major component or function 
of the organization; 
(ii) establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or 
function; 
(iii) exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
(iv) receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, 
the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
The petitioner indicated on the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, that it is engaged in the sale 
of automobiles and aquatic vehicles with five employees and a gross annual income of $332,000. The 
petitioner did not discuss its relationship with the beneficiary's prior foreign employer at the time of filing. 
The petitioner states that it wishes to employ the beneficiary as its President & General Manager. 
In a supplement to the Form I-140, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary's position is "executive and 
managerial in nature." The petitioner stated that the beneficiary will perform the following duties: staff 
management; inventory management; managing the daily overall activities of the company; pursuing the 
company's growth; and coordinating activities between the United States organization and in the 
Dominican Republic. 
In support of the petition, the petitioner provided inter alia the following: 2010 IRS Form 1120, U.S. 
Corporation Income Tax Returns; IRS Form W-3 showing $53,110 in wages paid in 2010; a lease for its 
current business premises; and Florida Department of Revenue Employer's Quarterly Reports and IRS Forms 
941 Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return, both for the first two quarters of 2011. 
The director issued a request for evidence ("RFE"). The director requested that the petitioner provide, inter 
alia, evidence that the beneficiary will act in a qualifying capacity as a multinational manager. Specifically, 
the director requested the following: (1) the beneficiary's position title and specific daily duties; (2) the 
percentage of time spent on each duty; (3) an organizational chart for the petitioner including job titles, duties, 
and educational levels for each employee as well as whether the employee works full or part-time; and (4) 
IRS Form W-2s, Wage and Tax Statements, for the relevant years for each employee. The director advised 
the petitioner that if it claims that the beneficiary manages an essential function, it must provide a description 
of the essential function to be managed. 
The petitioner submitted a letter in response to the RFE stating that it sells and distributes automobiles and 
aquatic vehicles and their parts, electrical generators and cooling equipment systems. The petitioner stated 
that it is a subsidiary of l in the Dominican Republic. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
In its response, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary will perform the following duties as she continues to 
act as the President and General Manager: (1) direct and coordinate all activities of the company including 
marketing, pricing, sales, trade, distribution and storage of the automobiles and aquatic vehicles and their 
parts, electrical generators and cooling equipment systems; (2) establish and implement the company's goals, 
objectives, and procedures; (3) determine staffing requirements, interview and hire and train new employees; 
(4) manage the staff, prepare work schedules and assign specific duties; (5) direct and coordinate the 
company's financial and budget activities; (6) review financial statements, sales and activity reports, and other 
performance data to measure productivity and goal achievement; and (7) determine the type of automobiles 
and aquatic vehicles and their parts, electrical generators and cooling equipment systems to be sold, set prices 
and credit terms, based on forecasts of customer demand. The petitioner did not provide the requested 
breakdown of the amount of time the beneficiary will spend on each duty on a weekly basis. 
The petitioner provided three different organizational charts in response to the RFE. The first chart shows the 
beneficiary as President/General Manager. Reporting to the beneficiary are a Manager, a Sales/Purchase 
employee, an Accounting/Bookkeeping employee, a Secretary, and a Sales Associate. All employees appear to 
be reporting directly to the beneficiary and not to the Manager. The seconq organizational chart shows four 
employees reporting to the beneficiary as President: Secretary, Purchases & Sales Manager, Sales Person 
(vacant), and Bookkeeper. The third organizational chart also shows four positions reporting to the beneficiary 
as President/General Manager: Vice-President, Sales Person, Secretary, and Accounting/Bookkeeping. 
The petitioner submitted a "List of current employees" that was not dated. The list included the names of the 
employees holding the positions of President/General Manager (the beneficiary), Vice-president, Sales, 
Secretary, and Accounting/Bookkeeping. The petitioner submitted a second document labeled "Employees 
Details." This document includes the names and educational levels for the employees holding the following 
positions: President (beneficiary), Manager, Sales/Purchase, Accounting/Bookkeeping, Secretary, and Sales 
Associate. The petitioner did not provide any job descriptions for the beneficiary's subordinate employees as 
requested. 
The petitioner provided a copy of its IRS Form 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return, for the quarter 
in which the petition was filed. The petitioner also provided a copy of its Florida Department of Revenue 
Employer's Quarterly Report for the quarter of filling. The quarterly report shows four employees for the 
month of August 2011. The employees paid include: the beneficiary; who is identified as a 
manager on one chart and as a vice president on one employee list; identified as "sales," 
"sales-purchase" and "sales-purchase manager" on the various charts; and who is identified as a 
bookkeeper on one of the submitted charts. One additional employee appears to have been hired in September 
2011 and does not appear on any employee list or organizational chart. Overall, the names of the employees 
paid in the quarter in which the petition was filed do not correspond exactly to any of the employee lists or 
organizational charts. Only the beneficiary, the Manager, and the Sales/Purchasing employee are also named in 
the other organizational charts and employee lists. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
The director ultimately denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary 
would be employed in a qualifying managerial or executive position. In denying the petition, the director found 
that the petitioner lacks the organizational complexity to warrant the employment of the beneficiary in a 
primarily executive or managerial capacity. Furthermore, the director stated that the description of the 
beneficiary's duties was vague and did not support a finding that the duties would be managerial in nature. 
The petitioner filed a motion to reopen. The petitioner provided a position description for the beneficiary 
including breakdown of time spent on each duty, along with a new organizational chart. The petitioner states 
that the beneficiary is relieved from performing non-managerial duties by the Sales Manager, Purchase 
Manager, Accountant, Office Manager, and Secretary. 
The director dismissed the 
motion, finding that the petitioner failed to provide evidence that the beneficiary will 
be acting in a managerial capacity. Specifically, the director noted the vague description of the beneficiary's 
duties, lack of subordinate staff to relieve her from performing non-qualifying duties, and lack of evidence to 
show that the beneficiary's subordinates are employed in professional-level positions. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that evidence of record is sufficient to establish that the beneficiary will be 
employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. Specifically, counsel states that the evidence 
supports a finding that the beneficiary will be acting in a primarily managerial capacity. Counsel re-submits the 
position description for the beneficiary that was provided on motion. With regard to staffing levels, counsel 
asserts that the staffing levels fit the reasonable needs of the organization. Counsel claims that the beneficiary 
supervises two managerial employees, a sales manager and "purchases" manager, as well as a professional 
office manager. 
Upon review of the petition and evidence, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity. 
In examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, USCIS will look first to the petitioner's 
description of the job duties. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(j)(5). Published case law clearly supports the pivotal role of 
a clearly defined job description, as the actual duties themselves reveal the true nature of the employment. 
Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); see 
also 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(j)(5). That being said, however, USCIS reviews the totality of the record, which includes 
not only the beneficiary's job description, but also takes into account the nature of the petitioner's business, the 
employment and remuneration of employees, as well as the job descriptions of the beneficiary's subordinates, if 
any, and any other facts contributing to a complete understanding of a beneficiary's actual role within a given 
entity. 
The definitions of executive and managerial capacity have two parts. First, the petitioner must show that the 
beneficiary performs the high-level responsibilities that are specified in the definitions. Second, the petitioner 
must prove that the beneficiary primarily performs these specified responsibilities and does not spend a 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page7 
majority of his or her time on day-to-day functions. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (Table), 1991 
WL 144470 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991). 
The beneficiary 's job descriptions submitted in support of the initial petition and in response to the RFE were 
overly general and vague, and therefore the petitioner failed to convey a meaningful understanding of how 
much time the beneficiary will spend performing qualifying tasks versus those that would be deemed non­
qualifying. For instance, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary will establish and implement the company's 
goals, objectives, and procedures; direct and coordinate all activities of the company; review financials 
statements to determine cost reduction and program improvement; and determine staffing requirement , 
interview, hire, and train new employees. These duties provided little or no insight into what the beneficiary 
primarily does on a day-to-day basis or how she carries out her objectives as President. 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 provide any 
detail or explanation of the beneficiary's activities in the course of his daily routine . 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). 
While several of the duties broadly described by the petitioner would generally fall under the definitions of 
managerial or executive capacity, the lack of specificity found in the beneficiary's job description, raises 
questions as to the beneficiary's actual proposed responsibilities. Overall, the position descriptions alone are 
insufficient to establish that the beneficiary's duties would be primarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, the petitioner provides a description of the beneficiary's duties including a percentage breakdown of 
time spent performing each duty. The regulation states that the petitioner shall submit additional evidence as 
the director, in his or her discretion, may deem necessary. 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). The failure to submit requested evidence that 
precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition . 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(14). 
Where, as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an 
opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal. 
See Matter of Soriano , 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigb ena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 
1988). If the petitioner had wanted the submitted evidence to be considered, it should have submitted the 
documents in response to the director's request for evidence. !d. Under the circumstances, the AAO need not 
and does not consider the sufficiency of the evidence submitted on appeal. Nevertheless, as observed by the 
director in dismissing the petitioner's motion, the latest version of the beneficiary's position description is 
actually less detailed than that provided in response to the RFE, and indicates only how the beneficiary would 
allocate her time among four very broad areas of responsibility. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
Although the beneficiary is not required to supervise personnel, if it is claimed that her duties involve 
supervising employees, the petitioner must establish that the subordinate employees are supervisory, 
professional, or managerial. See§ 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
The petitioner failed to provide a consistent and credible description of its organizational structure at the time 
of filing. In response to the RFE, the petitioner provide three differing organizational charts and two employee 
lists, none of which correspond to the other. Furthermore, the petitioner provided state quarterly wage reports 
as well as Forms W-2 that do not substantiate any of the organizational charts or employee lists provided in the 
response. Without a clear explanation of the number of employees working for the petitioner at the time of 
filing, their job duties, and the reporting structure within the company, the record does not substantiate what 
positions are reporting to the beneficiary and available to relieve her of non-qualifying duties. 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). 
In evaluating whether the beneficiary manages professional employees, the AAO must evaluate whether the 
subordinate positions require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of endeavor. Section 
10l(a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(32), states that "[t]he term profession shall include but not be limited 
to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, 
colleges, academies, or seminaries." 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. 
Matter of Sea, 19 I&N Dec. 817 (Comm'r 1988); Matter of Ling, 13 I&N Dec. 35 (R.C. 1968); Matter of Shin, 
11 I&N Dec. 686 (D.D. 1966). 
Therefore, the AAO must focus on the level of education required by the position, rather than the degree held 
by subordinate employee. The possession of a bachelor's degree by a subordinate employee does not 
automatically lead to the conclusion that an employee is employed in a professional capacity as that term is 
defined above. Here, the petitioner failed to submit the requested position descriptions for the beneficiary's 
subordinates. Without the position descriptions, the AAO is unable to determine whether a bachelor's degree is 
actually required for performance of the subordinates' duties. Failure to submit requested evidence that 
precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l4). 
On appeal, the petitioner claims that the beneficiary will be supervising a subordinate manager and a 
subordinate sales/purchasing manager. None of the petitioner's three organizational charts submitted in 
response to the RFE show what employees would be directly reporting to the manager or sales/purchasing 
position, such that these positions could be considered managerial or supervisory in nature. Further, the 
petitioner submitted an organizational chart on motion which shows all subordinate employees reporting 
directly to the beneficiary, and indicates that none of the employees have subordinates of their own. In 
addition, the position description provided for the beneficiary in response to the RFE show that the beneficiary 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
would be performing many, if not all of the duties related to the supervision of the company's employees 
including staffing, hiring, scheduling, reviewing financial reports, reviewing inventory, and reviewing sales. 
This information further supports a finding that the beneficiary does not supervise subordinate managers or 
supervisors. Regardless, as noted, the petitioner has not submitted position descriptions for any subordinate 
employees or a consistent explanation of the company's organizational structure. 
When examining the managerial or executive capacity of a beneficiary, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) reviews the totality of the record, including descriptions of a beneficiary's duties and his or 
her subordinate employees, the nature of the petitioner's business, the employment and remuneration of 
employees, and any other facts contributing to a complete understanding of a beneficiary's actual role in a 
business. The evidence must substantiate that the duties of the beneficiary and his or her subordinates 
correspond to their placement in an organization's structural hierarchy; artificial tiers of subordinate employees 
and inflated job titles are not probative and will not establish that an organization is sufficiently complex to 
support an executive or manager position. An individual whose primary duties are those of a first-line 
supervisor will not be considered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of his or her 
supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are professional. Section 10l(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act. 
Here, the petitioner has not provided evidence of an organizational structure sufficient to elevate the beneficiary 
to a supervisory position that is higher than a first-line supervisor of non-professional employees. Pursuant to 
section 101(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act, the beneficiary's position does not qualify as primarily managerial under 
the statutory definitions 
The beneficiary's proposed position is President and General Manager of an automobile and aquatic vehicles 
sales store staffed by three to four employees other than the beneficiary. The petitioner has not demonstrated 
that the beneficiary, as a personnel manager, will be primarily supervising a subordinate staff of professional, 
managerial, or supervisory personnel. See section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. Furthermore, the petitioner has 
not established that it will employ a staff that will relieve the beneficiary from performing non-qualifying duties 
so that the beneficiary may primarily engage in managerial duties. Further, regardless of the beneficiary's 
position title, the record is not persuasive that the beneficiary will function at a senior level within an 
organizational hierarchy. 
As required by section 101 (a)(44)(C) of the Act, if staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an 
individual is acting in a managerial or executive capacity, USCIS must take into account the reasonable needs 
of the organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the organization. The record 
lacks a detailed description of the beneficiary's duties, a consistent description of the company's organizational 
structure, and a description of what duties and functions are handled by the beneficiary's subordinates. 
Therefore we cannot determine that the petitioner has a reasonable need for the beneficiary to perform 
primarily managerial or executive duties. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
In summary, the petitioner has failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary would be 
employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity and the instant petition cannot 
be approved. 
B. Managerial or Executive Capacity with Foreign Employer 
The second issue to be discussed is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary was employed abroad 
in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
In the initial petition, the petitioner failed to provide a position description for the beneficiary in her position 
with the foreign employer. Accordingly, the director requested a detailed description identifying the 
beneficiary's specific duties and the amount of time she allocates to each duty, accompanied by a detailed 
organizational chart and detailed position descriptions for all employees the beneficiary supervised while 
employed abroad. The petitioner failed to provide the requested position descriptions for the beneficiary and 
her subordinates ih response to the RFE and offered this required information on motion and in support of the 
instant appeal. The regulation states that the petitioner shall submit additional evidence as the director, in his or 
her discretion, may deem necessary. 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.P.R. §§ 103.2(b)(8) and (12). The failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of 
inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(14). 
Where, as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an 
opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal. 
See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 
1988). If the petitioner had wanted the submitted evidence to be considered, it should have submitted the 
documents in response to the director's request for evidence. Id. Under the circumstances, the AAO need not 
and does not consider the sufficiency of the evidence submitted on appeal. Consequently, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
Without the requested position description, the record cannot support a finding that the beneficiary performed 
primarily managerial duties while employed by the petitioner's claimed parent company. Similarly, in response 
to the RFE the petitioner submitted the requested organizational chart for the foreign organization, but failed to 
submit any position descriptions for the beneficiary's subordinates as requested. Without the requested 
position descriptions, the record cannot support a finding that the beneficiary supervised subordinate 
managerial, supervisory, or professional level employees. 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. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)). 
In summary, the petitioner has failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary was 
employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity and the instant petition cannot be approved. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
C. Qualifying Relationship 
Additionally, while not previously addressed in the director's decision, the AAO finds that the record contains 
other deficiencies that preclude approval of the petition. Specifically, the evidence of record does not establish that 
the petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. To establish a "qualifying 
relationship" under the Act and the regulations, the petitioner must show that the beneficiary's foreign employer 
and the proposed U.S. employer are the same employer (i.e. a U.S. entity with a foreign office) or related as a 
"parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See generally§ 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C); see 
also 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(j)(2) (providing definitions of the terms "affiliate" and "subsidiary"). 
The regulation and case law confirm that ownership and control are the factors that must be examined in 
determining whether a qualifying relationship exists between United States and foreign entities for purposes of 
this visa classification . Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (Comm'r 1988); see also 
Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (Comm'r 1986); Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 
289 (Comm'r 1982). In the context of this visa petition, ownership refers to the direct or indirect legal right of 
possession of the assets of an entity with full power and authority to control; control means the direct or 
indirect legal right and authority to direct the establishment, management, and operations of an entity. Matter 
of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. at 595. 
As general evidence of a petitioner's claimed qualifying relationship , tax documents alone are not sufficient 
evidence to determine whether a stockholder maintains ownership and control of a corporate entity . In 
addition, on appeal, the petitioner submits amended tax returns; however , there is no evidence that the amended 
returns were actually filed. The petitioner failed to submit any additional evidence of ownership such as the 
articles of incorporation, stock certificates, the corporate stock certificate ledger, stock certificate registry, 
corporate bylaws, and the minutes of relevant annual shareholder meetings to determine the total number of 
shares issued, the exact number issued to the shareholder, and the subsequent percentage ownership and its 
effect on corporate control. Additionally, a petitioning company must disclose all agreements relating to the 
voting of shares, the distribution of profit, the management and direction of the subsidiary, and any other factor 
affecting actual control of the entity. See Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., supra. Without full 
disclosure of all relevant documents, users is unable to determine the elements of ownership and control. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner provided the articles of incorporation and other various business 
documents related to the U.S. corporation. The petitioner failed to provide the stock certificates, stock ledger, 
or any other documents to substantiate who actually owns the corporation as requested by the director. Without 
these documents, the record does not support a finding that the petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the 
beneficiary's foreign employer. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirement s 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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), ajj'd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). Therefore, based on the additional grounds of ineligibility discussed above, this 
petition cannot be approved . 
Ill . CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate 
basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.