dismissed EB-1C Case: Building Materials

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U. S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve.N.w., MS 2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: OFFICE:TEXASSERVICECENTER
AUG102012
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor AlienWorkerasaMultinationalExecutiveor ManagerPursuant
to Section203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ l l53(b)(1)(C)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
Enclosedpleasefind the decisionof the AdministrativeAppealsOffice in your case. All of the
documentsrelatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Please
beadvisedthatanyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadetothatoffice.
If youbelievetheAAO inappropriatelyappliedthelaw in reachingits decision,or youhaveadditional
information that you wish to haveconsidered,you may file a motion to reconsideror a motion to reopen
in accordancewith theinstructionsonFormI-290B,Noticeof AppealorMotion,witha feeof $630.The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha motioncanbefoundat 8C.F.R.§ 103.5.Do not file anymotion
directly with the AAO. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto be filed
within30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseekstoreconsiderorreopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The director of the TexasServiceCenterrevokedthe previouslyapproved
preferencevisapetition. Thematteris nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) on
appeal.Theappealwill bedismissed.
ThepetitionerisaTexascorporationthatis engagedin buildingmaterial,manufactureandtrade.
Thepetitionerseeksto employthebeneficiaryasits Vice President.Accordingly,thepetitioner
endeavorsto classifythe beneficiaryas an employment-basedimmigrantpursuantto section
203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C),asa
multinational executiveor manager.
OnJune24,2010,thedirectorrevokedthepetitionconcludingthatthepetitionerdid not submit
sufficient evidencein rebuttal to the United StatesCitizenshipand Immigration Services'
("USCIS") Notice of Intent to Revoke ("NOIR") and has not overcomethe grounds for
revocation.TheAAO reviewedtherecordin its entiretybeforeissuingits decision.
OnJuly6, 1999,thepetitionerfiledtheFormI-140to classifythebeneficiaryasanemployment-
basedimmigrant.Thedirectorapprovedthepetition. OnMay 17,2010,thedirectornotifiedthe
petitionerof his intentto revokeapprovalof the immigrantpetition. In the noticeof intentto
revoke,thedirectorstatedthefollowing:
On August 18,2009attorney wasconvictedin the Southern
District of Texasfor conspiracyto engagein visa fraud, encouragingChinese
aliensto unlawfullyentertheUnitedStatesandmoneylaundering.UnitedStates
companieswereusedby the to actaspetitionerson behalfof
Chineseclients willing to pay for obtaining permanentresidencethrough
employmentbasedvisas. The createdillusory relationships
between Chinese companiesand the United States companiesby having
representativefrom the United Statescompaniesenterinto contractof salewith
the Chinesecompaniesin exchangefor an initial fee, between$10,000and
$20,000. Onceeachof the United Statescompanieswere shownon paperas
subsidiaryof a Chinesecompany,the would prepareand
presentfraudulentpetitionsandsupportingdocumentson behalfof their clients
with the United StatesCitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS),formerly
theImmigrationandNaturalizationService(INS). Thecontractof salesbetween
theChineseandUnitedStatescompanieswerenevercompleted.
Thedirectoralsostatedthat the petitionerneverprovidedevidenceof paymentby the foreign
companyfor the stocksharesof the petitioner. In addition,the directornotedthat the Texas
FranchiseTax Public InformationReportsfiled in 2002, 2004 and 2005,provideconflicting
informationasto whethera foreigncompanyhasanyownershipof thepetitioner,andprovides
conflicting informationasto the beneficiary'spositionwith the petitioner. The director also
notedthat a DunandBradstreetreportindicatedthat the petitionerhasno foreignpartnersand
100%of the stock is owned by the companyofficers. Finally, the director notedthat "a
commercialdatabasesearchshowsthat[thepetitioner]forfeitedexistenceonJuly24,2009."
Page3
On June24, 2010,the director revokedthe Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker sincethe
petitionerdid not provide evidenceto overcomethe groundsfor revocationlisted in thenoticeof
intentto revoke. On August 19,2010,the petitionerfiled a motionto reopenanda motionto
reconsiderstatingthatthepetitionerneverreceivedtheNoticeof Intentto Revokeor theNotice
of Revocation,sinceboth documentswere sent to an old addressfor the petitioner. The
petitioneralso statedthat it was not requiredto inform USCIS of an addresschangeafter
approvalof the I-140. Thepetitionerfurtherstatedthat it efiled anAR-11, Alien's Changeof
AddressCard,with theUSCISon April 2, 2010,prior to thedatetheNoticeof Intentto Revoke
wassentto thepetitioner.
On February18,2011,the directororderedthat the originaldecisionrevokingthe approvalof
FormI-140remainundisturbedandthepetitionremainrevokedbecausetheevidencesubmitted
with themotionto reopenandreconsiderdoesnot overcomethegroundsstatedfor denial. The
directornotedthattheAR-11filed by thepetitionerstatedthatit wasfor apendingI-140but the
petitionerdid nothaveapendingI-140with USCIS.
On March 7, 2011, counselfor the petitioner filed Form I-1290B to appealthe director's
decision.
TheAAO notesthatthepetitionerfiledFormAR-11onApril 2, 2010,priorto thedateUSCIS
sentout a Noticeof Intent to Revoke. Thus,the Notice of Intent to Revokewassentto the
wrong addressasit wassentto the petitioner'sprior addressandnot the addressindicatedin
FormAR-11.
Upon review, the information submittedby the petitioneris not sufficient to overcomethe
director'sgroundsfor revocationof theapprovalof thepetition.
On appeal,counselfor the petitionerstatedthat in June1999,the foreigncompanypurchased
55%of thesharesof thepetitionerfor $230,000.00.Counselalsocontendsthatatthattime,the
petitionerhadtwo additionalshareholders, (22.5%)and (22.5%).
As evidenceof this, the petitioner submittedthe certificate of incorporation,three stock
certificatesandfederaltax returnsfor 2000,2001,2002and2003. Counselalsostatedthat
"USCISalwaysconsidersandacceptsa petitioner'stax returnformsfiled to the IRS asthe
highestauthoritativeevidenceto verify a businessentity's information." In addition,counsel
statesthat in 2004, the petitioner becamewholly owned by the foreign company and the
beneficiarynow holdsthepositionof Presidentfor thepetitioner.
The issueto be discussedin the presentmatter is whether the petitioner has establishedthat a
qualifying relationship exists with the beneficiary's overseasemployer. To establisha
"qualifying relationship"underthe Act andthe regulations,the petitionermustshowthat the
beneficiary'sforeignemployerandtheproposedU.S.employerarethe sameemployer(i.e. a
U.S. entitywith a foreignoffice) or relatedasa "parentandsubsidiary"or as"affiliates." See
generally§203(b)(1)(C)of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ ll53(b)(1)(C);seealso8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(2)
(providingdefinitionsof theterms"affiliate" and"subsidiary").
Page4
The regulationandcaselaw confirm that ownershipand control arethe factorsthat mustbe
examinedin determiningwhethera qualifying relationshipexistsbetweenUnited Statesand
foreign entities for purposesof this visa classification. Matter of Church Scientology
International, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (BIA 1988);seealso Matter of SiemensMedical Systems,Inc.,
19 I&N Dec.362(BIA 1986);Matterof Hughes,18I&N Dec.289 (Comm.1982). In the
contextof this visapetition,ownershiprefersto thedirector indirectlegalright of possessionof
the assetsof an entity with full power and authorityto control; control meansthe direct or
indirectlegalright andauthorityto directthe establishment,management,andoperationsof an
entity. Matterof ChurchScientologyInternational,19I&N Dec.at595.
As generalevidenceof a petitioner'sclaimedqualifyingrelationship,stockcertificatesaloneare
not sufficientevidenceto determinewhethera stockholdermaintainsownershipandcontrolof a
corporateentity. Thepetitionersubmittedthreestockcertificates;however,this is not sufficient
evidenceto establishownership.Thecorporatestockcertificateledger,stockcertificateregistry,
corporatebylaws, and the minutes of relevant annual shareholdermeetingsmust also be
examinedto determinethe total numberof sharesissued,the exact numberissuedto the
shareholder,and the subsequentpercentageownershipand its effect on corporatecontrol.
Additionally,apetitioningcompanymustdiscloseall agreementsrelatingto thevotingof shares,
the distributionof profit, the managementanddirectionof the subsidiary,andanyotherfactor
affectingactualcontrol of the entity. SeeMatter of SiemensMedical Systems,Inc., supra.
Without full disclosureof all relevantdocuments,USCISis unableto determinetheelementsof
ownershipandcontrol.
Furthermore,asnotedby the director,the petitionerfailed to provideany evidencethat the
foreigncompanypurchasedthe stocksasevidencedin the stockcertificate. Thepetitionerdid
not submitevidencethat the $230,000.00for the purchaseof 55% ownershipof the petitioner
was depositedin the U.S. entity's bank account,or documentationsuchas receiptsof wire
transfersor copiesof the U.S. company'sbankaccount. Goingon recordwithout supporting
documentaryevidenceis not sufficient for purposesof meeting the burden of proof in these
proceedings.Matterof Soffici,22I&N Dec.at 165.
In addition,thepetitionerprovidedtaxreturnsto evidenceownershipof thepetitioner;however,
tax returns alone are not sufficient to establisha qualifying relationship. Upon review of the
Form1120,U.S.CorporationIncomeTaxReturn,for 2001,2002and2003,it appearsthatthere
is conflictingevidenceof ownership.TheForm1120,U.S.CorporationIncomeTaxReturn,for
2000statesthe ownershipof the petitioneris held by [the foreign company](55%),
(22.5%)andM22.5%). However,in thetax returnfor 2001,theownership
changedto [the beneficiary](55%), (23%), and (23%). The
petitionerdoesnotprovideanyevidenceto m icatet is changeof ownershipanddoesnot exlain
howthethreeownerscanown 101%of the etitioner. In thetaxreturnfor 2002,it goesbackto
the foreigncompanyowning55%, (23%)and (23%). Again,the
petitioner never explainedwhy the tax documentsare inconsistentand how the three
shareholderscanownover 100%of thepetitioner.It is incumbentuponthepetitionerto resolve
anyinconsistenciesin the recordby independentobjectiveevidence.Any attemptto explainor
Page5
reconcilesuchinconsistencieswill not sufficeunlessthepetitionersubmitscompetentobjective
evidencepointing to wherethetruth lies. Matter of Ho, 19I&N Dec. 582,591-92(BIA 1988).
Furthermore,thedirectornotedin theNoticeof Intentto RevokeandtheNoticeof Revocation,
that the petitioner provided conflicting information in the Texas FranchiseTax Public
InformationReports.Specifically,thereportfiled on September3,2002by thepetitionerdidnot
list anycompaniesin SectionCthatowns10%or moreof thepetitioner.Thesameis trueof the
TexasFranchiseTaxPublicInformationReportfiled in 2002. Thepetitionerdid notdiscussthis
issueon appealanddid not provideanyevidenceto overcomethedirector'sconcerns.Goingon
recordwithoutsupportingdocumentaryevidenceis not sufficientfor purposesof meetingtheburdenof
proofin theseproceedings.Matter of Soffici,22 I&N Dec. 158,165(Comm.1998)(citingMatter of
TreasureCraftof California,14I&N Dec.190(Reg.Comm.1972)).
In addition, the director noted inconsistentevidencein the Texas FranchiseTax Public
InformationReportin 2004that indicatedthe foreigncompanyasthe 100percentowner. The
petitionerexplainedthat in 2004,the foreigncompanypurchasedthe stockfromthe othertwo
shareholdersandbecamethesoleownerof thepetitioner.Thepetitionerprovidedtheminutesof
a meetingindicatingthis changebut did not provide stock certificatesor a stock ledgeras
evidencethat the foreign companybecamethe soleownerof the petitioner. Again,goingon
recordwithoutsupportingdocumentaryevidenceis not sufficientfor purposesof meetingtheburdenof
proofin theseproceedings.MatterofSoffici,22I&N Dec.158at 165.
In addition,thedirectornotedthat a DunandBradstreetreportshowsthatthepetitionerhasno
foreignpartneror foreignbusinesslocations,andis 100%ownedby the companyofficers. The
petitioner failed to discussthis issueon appealand did not provide any documentationto
overcomethedirector'sconcern.
Furthermore,the directornotedthat "a commercialdatabasesearchshowsthat the petitioner
forfeitedexistenceon July 24, 2009." Thepetitionerexplainedthat it hada disputewith IRS
from 2007 until 2010 and "during this period of time, [the petitioner]was forfeited." The
petitioneralsosubmitteda letterfromtheInternalRevenueServiceto thebeneficiary.Theletter
statedthat "we have requestedthat the liabilities assessedagainstyou be abatedin full."
However,theletteris addressedto thebeneficiaryandnotto thepetitioner.It is incumbentupon
the petitionerto resolveany inconsistenciesin the recordby independentobjectiveevidence.
Any attemptto explainor reconcilesuchinconsistencieswill not sufficeunlessthe petitioner
submits competentobjective evidencepointing to wherethe truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N
Dec.582,591-92(BIA 1988).
Counsel'sstatementson appealdo not overcomethe director's concerns. Counseldid not
providesufficientevidenceto overcomethefindingsof thedirector. Theunsupportedstatements
of counselon appealor in a motionarenot evidenceandthusarenot entitledto anyevidentiary
weight.SeeINSv.Phinpathya,464U.S.183,188-89n.6(1984);MatterofRamirez-Sanchez,17
I&N Dec.503(BIA 1980).
Page6
Beyondthe decisionof the director,the recordlackssubstantivejob descriptionsestablishing
whatjob dutiesthebeneficiaryperformedduringheremploymentabroadandthejob dutiesshe
would performin her proposedpositionwith the U.S. office. Conclusoryassertionsregarding
thebeneficiary'semploymentcapacityarenot sufficient. Merelyrepeatingthe languageof the
statuteor regulationsdoesnot satisfythe petitioner'sburdenof proof. Fedin Bros.Co.,Ltd. v.
Sava,724 F. Supp. 1103,1108(E.D.N.Y. 1989),affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990);Avyr
Associates,Inc. v.Meissner,1997WL 188942at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). The actualdutiesthemselves
will revealthe true natureof the employment.Fedin Bros. Co.,Ltd. v. Sava,724F. Supp.at
1108.
An applicationor petitionthatfailsto complywith thetechnicalrequirementsof thelaw maybe
deniedby the AAO evenif the ServiceCenterdoesnot identifyall of thegroundsfor denialin
the initial decision. SeeSpencerEnterprises,Inc. v. United States,229 F. Supp.2d 1025,1043
(E.D.Cal.2001),affd. 345F.3d683(9thCir.2003);seealsoSoltanev.DOJ,381F.3d143,145
(3dCir. 2004)(notingthattheAAO reviewsappealsonadenovobasis).
The petition will be revoked for the above statedreasons,with each consideredas an
independentandalternativebasisfor denial. In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenof proving
eligibility for thebenefitsoughtremainsentirelywith the petitioner. Section291of theAct, 8
U.S.C.§ 1361.Thepetitionerhasnotsustainedthatburden.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.Thepetitionisrevoked.