dismissed EB-1C Case: Business

identifyingdatadetetedto
reventclearlyunwarr
nyasionofpersona1privacyPUBLICCOPY
U.S.DepartmentofHomelandSecurity
U. S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
20MassachusettsAve.N.W.,MS2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
8 U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
L
DATE: OCT1 4 2011 OFFICE:TEXASSERVICECENTER F
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien WorkerasaMultinationalExecutiveor ManagerPursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(C)oftheImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decisionof the AdministrativeAppealsOffice in your case. All of the documents
relatedto this matterhavebeenreturnedto theoffice thatoriginally decidedyour case.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquiry thatyoumight haveconcerningyour casemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional
informationthatyou wishto haveconsidered,you mayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopen.The
specific requirementsfor filing such a requestcan be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be
submittedto theoffice thatoriginally decidedyour caseby filing a FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,
with a fee of $630. Pleasebe awarethat 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthat any motion must be filed
within 30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: Thepreferencevisapetitionwasdeniedby theDirector,TexasServiceCenter.Thematteris
nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO) on appeal.Theappealwill bedismissed.
Thepetitioneris a Texascorporationthat seeksto employthe beneficiaryasits president. Accordingly,the
petitioner endeavorsto classify the beneficiary as an employment-basedimmigrant pursuantto section
203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C),asa multinational
executiveor manager.
Thedirectordeniedthepetitionbasedon threeseparateadversefindingsregardingthe petitioner'seligibility.
First, the director found that the petitioner failed to submit credible evidenceestablishingthat it has a
qualifyingrelationshipwith the beneficiary'sforeignemployer. Second,the directordeterminedthatthe
petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidenceshowingthat the foreign entity continuesto do business.
Third, the directorconcludedthat the petitionerfailed to establishthat the beneficiarywasemployedabroad
in a qualifyingmanagerialor executivecapacity.
Additionally, the directorissueda finding of willful misrepresentationbasedon perceivedinconsistenciesin
the record. First, the directorfound the petitioner'sclaim, which indicatesthat the beneficiarycontinuedto
serve as the foreign entity's vice presidentfrom 1998 through 2005, to be misleadingbasedon the
beneficiary'scontinuedand uninterruptedstay in the United Statessincehis last entry on April 4, 2002.
Second,the director observedthat two of the submitteddocuments,i.e., the documentsentitled "Release
Agreement"and "LeaseDeed,"werealsomisleadingin that both containedthe beneficiary'ssignaturewhile
simultaneouslyindicating that the respectivetransactionstook place in India despitethe fact that the
beneficiarywasalreadyresidingin theUnited Statesatthetime of thesetransactionsandthuscouldnot have
beenpartyto anytransactionsthattook placein India.
On appeal,counseldisputesall three findings of ineligibility as well as the director's finding of willful
misrepresentation.Thepetitionerprovidesadditionaldocumentationin an attemptto overcomethe director's
adversedecision.
Section203(b)of theAct statesin pertinentpart:
(1) Priority Workers.-- Visas shallfirst be madeavailable. . . to qualified immigrantswho
arealiensdescribedin anyof thefollowing subparagraphs(A) through(C):
* * *
(C)CertainMultinationalExecutivesandManagers.-- An alienis described
in this subparagraphif the alien, in the 3 yearsprecedingthe time of the
alien's application for classificationand admissioninto the United States
underthis subparagraph,hasbeenemployedfor at least1 year by a firm or
corporationor otherlegalentityor anaffiliateor subsidiarythereofandwho
seeksto entertheUnited Statesin orderto continueto renderservicesto the
sameemployeror to a subsidiaryor affiliate thereof in a capacitythat is
managerialor executive.
Page3
The languageof the statuteis specificin limiting this provisionto only thoseexecutivesandmanagerswho
havepreviouslyworkedfor a firm, corporationor otherlegalentity,or anaffiliate or subsidiaryof that entity,
andwhoarecomingto theUnited Statesto work for thesameentity,or its affiliate or subsidiary.
A United Statesemployermay file a petition on Form I-140 for classificationof an alien under section
203(b)(1)(C)of the Act asa multinationalexecutiveor manager.No labor certificationis requiredfor this
classification. The prospectiveemployerin the United Statesmust furnish a job offer in the form of a
statementwhich indicatesthat the alien is to be employedin the United Statesin a managerialor executive
capacity. Sucha statementmustclearlydescribethedutiesto beperformedby thealien.
I. Willful Misrepresentation
As a preliminarymatter,the AAO will addresswhetherthe evidencesubmittedwith respectto the claimed
ownershipof thebeneficiary'sforeignemployerrisesto thelevel of a misrepresentation.A misrepresentation
is anassertionor manifestationthat is not in accordwith thetrue facts.1A misrepresentationof materialfact
mayleadto seriousconsequences,includingbut not limited to thedenialof thevisapetition,a finding of fact
thatmayrenderanindividualalieninadmissibleto theUnitedStates,andcriminalprosecution.
Section212(a)(6)(C)oftheAct,8U.S.C.§ 1182(a)(6)(C),provides:
Misrepresentation.- (i) In general. - Any alien who, by fraud or willfully
misrepresentinga materialfact, seeksto procure(or has soughtto procureor has
procured)a visa, otherdocumentation,or admissioninto the United Statesor other
benefitprovidedunderthisActisinadmissible.
As outlinedby the Boardof ImmigrationAppeals(BIA), a materialmisrepresentationrequiresthat the alien
willfully makea materialmisstatementto a governmentofficial for the purposeof obtainingan immigration
benefitto whichoneis notentitled.MatterofKai HingHui, 15I&N Dec.288,289-90(BIA 1975).Theterm
"willfully" meansknowingandintentionally,asdistinguishedfrom accidentally,inadvertently,or in anhonest
beliefthatthe factsareotherwise.SeeMatter of Tijam,22 I&N Dec.408,425 (BIA 1998);Matter of Healyand
Goodchild,17I&N Dec.22,28(BIA 1979).Tobeconsideredmaterial,themisrepresentationmustbeonewhich
"tendsto shutoff a line of inquirywhich is relevantto thealien'seligibility, andwhichmightwell haveresulted
in aproperdeterminationthathebeexcluded."MatterofNg, 17I&N Dec.536,537(BIA 1980).
In the presentmatter,the directorissueda decisionon February19,2009in which he concludedthat certain
documentsthat the petitionersubmittedin its responseto the notice of intent to deny (NOID) constituted
willful misrepresentation.Specifically,thedirectorpointedto anomaliesthathediscovereduponreviewing
the documentsentitled"ReleaseAgreement"and"LeaseDeed,"datedApril 2, 2005andApril 11,2005,
respectively. The directorobservedthat both documentsindicatethat they werewitnessedandexecutedin
1 Theterms"fraud" and"misrepresentation"arenotinterchangeable.Unlikeafindingof fraud,afindingof
materialmisrepresentationdoesnot requireanintentto deceiveor that the officer believesandactsuponthe
falserepresentation.SeeMatter ofKai Hing Hui, 15I&N Dec.288(BIA 1975). A finding of fraudrequiresa
determinationthat the alien madea falserepresentationof a materialfact with knowledgeof its falsity and
with the intent to deceivean immigration officer. Furthermore,the false representationmust have been
believedandacteduponby theofficer.SeeMatter of G-G-,7 I&N Dec. 161(BIA 1956).
Page4
India at a time when the beneficiarywas alreadyresiding in the United States. As such, the director
determinedthat the beneficiarycould not havesignedeitherdocumentin India in the presenceof a witness
andthat the petitioner'ssubmissionof documentsthat suggestthis factual impossibility rise to the level of
willful misrepresentation.
On appeal,counselexplainsthatthe documentsin questionweresubmittedfor thepurposeof correctingan
error that was madein the petitioner'soriginal supportstatement,where the petitioner indicatedthat the
beneficiaryrelinquishedhis ownershipof his foreignemployer. Counselclaimsthat this claimwasincorrect
anddirectstheAAO's attentionto the documententitled"ReleaseAgreement"in aneffort to establishthat in
fact it was not the beneficiarywho relinquishedhis claim in the partnershipwhere he was previously
employed,but ratherthat it washis partnerwho relinquishedhis shareof the partnershipby transferringhis
ownershipshareto the beneficiary. Counselmaintainsthe claim that the petitioner is a wholly owned
subsidiaryof the beneficiary'sforeign employerandfurther contendsthat in a parent-subsidiaryrelationship
the issueof the parentemployer'sownershipand the validity of the documentspertainingto the parent's
ownershipareimmaterialto issuesconcerningthepetitioner'seligibility.
After reviewingthe factsin the presentmatter,the AAO finds that the finding of willful misrepresentation
wasnotwarrantedin thepresentmatter. Althoughthedirectorprovidedanaccurateanalysisof the"Release
Agreement"andthe "LeaseDeed"andproperlyquestionedthevalidity of thesedocumentsbasedon his
analysis,the anomaliesdiscussedin the director's decision are not material to issuesconcerningthe
petitioner'seligibility. As such,theAAO herebywithdrawsthedirector'sfinding of willful misrepresentation.
Notwithstandingtheabove,theAAO pointsoutthatthepetitionerhasfailedto resolvethevariousanomalies
thatledthedirector,andnowtheAAO, to questionthecredibility of thepetitioner'sclaimsandthesupporting
documentsthat havebeensubmittedto corroboratesuchclaims. Namely, the AAO joins the director in
questioningthereliability of the "ReleaseAgreement"andthe "LeaseDeed." As properlypointedout in the
director'sFebruary19,2009decision,thedocumentsindicatethattheywereexecutedin India onApril 2 and
April 5, 2005, respectively,and both containthe beneficiary'ssignatureas well as the signaturesof two
witnesses,indicatingthattheexecutionwaswitnessedby two individualsneitherof whomwasa namedparty
to eithertransaction. In light of the fact that the beneficiarywas residing in the United Stateson eachof the
executiondates,it would havebeenfactuallyimpossiblefor thebeneficiaryto bepresentin India andfor his
signatureto havebeenwitnessedbythirdpartyindividualsin India. Althoughcounselclaimedin hisMarch
20, 2009statementthat the foreign documentsweresentto the beneficiaryby facsimile,thusindicatingthat
thedocumentscouldhavebeenexecutedonthedatesindicated,neitherdocumentcontainsa dateandtime of
theclaimedfacsimiletocorroboratecounsel'sclaim. Withoutdocumentaryevidenceto supporttheclaim,the
assertionsof counselwill not satisfythe petitioner'sburdenof proof. The unsupportedassertionsof counsel
donotconstituteevidence.Matterof Obaigbena,19I&N Dec.533,534(BIA 1988);MatterofLaureano,19
I&N Dec.1(BIA 1983);MatterofRamirez-Sanchez,17I&N Dec.503,506(BIA 1980).
Furthermore,eachdocumentcontainsthesignatureof two witnesses,thusindicatingthatsomeoneotherthan
the beneficiaryhimself was presentto actuallyseehim sign the documents.Regardlessof whetherthe
documentsweresentto thebeneficiaryby facsimileor by mail, thebeneficiarywould hadto havesignedthe
documentsin the United Statesand thus could not have beenwitnessedby the two individuals whose
signaturesare affixed to the documents. While the witnesssignaturesmay not be essentialfor either
documentto bedeemedvalid,thefactthatthebeneficiary'ssignatureappearsalongsidethesignaturesof two
witnessesclearly leadsanyonewho reviewsthesedocumentsto draw the obviousconclusion,i.e., that the
Page5
beneficiarysignedthe documentsin the presenceof two witnesses. It is incumbentuponthe petitionerto
resolveany inconsistenciesin the record by independentobjective evidence.Any attemptto explain or
reconcilesuchinconsistencieswill not suffice unlessthe petitioner submitscompetentobjectiveevidence
pointing to wherethe truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92(BIA 1988). Furthermore,the
petitioner'sfailureto resolveinconsistencieson recordcastsdoubtonthepetitioner'scredibility andmaylead
to a reevaluationof the reliability and sufficiencyof the remainingevidenceoffered in supportof the visa
petition.Id. at591.
In thepresentmatter,thepetitionerwasunableto resolvethe anomaliesdiscussedabove. As such,theAAO
reservestheright to furtherscrutinizeandquestionthevalidity of anydocumentthe petitionerhassubmitted
in supportof its claims,particularly handwrittendocumentswhoseinformationmay not be verified by an
independentsource. Counsel challengesthe director's questionsregarding the petitioner's credibility,
assertingthatU.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)mustevaluatethepetitioner'sclaimbased
on the preponderanceof the evidencestandardof proof. In applying the preponderanceof the evidence
standard,evenif the directorhassomedoubtasto thetruth, if thepetitionersubmitsrelevant,probative,and
credibleevidencethat leadsthedirectorto believethatthe claim is "probablytrue" or "morelikely thannot,"
the applicantor petitionerhassatisfiedthe standardof proof. SeeUS. v. Cardozo-Fonseca,480 U.S. 421
(1987)(defining "morelikely thannot" asa greaterthan 50 percentprobability of somethingoccurring). If
the director can articulatea material doubt, it is appropriatefor the director to either requestadditional
evidenceor, if that doubtleadsthe directorto believethattheclaim is probablynot true,denytheapplication
or petition.
Accordingly,whenevidencethat is submittedin supportof thepetitionis deemedto belackingin credibility,
it is reasonablefor USCISto go scrutinizeandpossiblyreevaluatethereliability of evidencethat initially may
havebeendeemedto becredible. SeeMatter of Ho, 19I&N Dec.at 591. In applyingthepreponderanceof
theevidencestandard,theAAO would beremissto find thatthepetitioner'sclaim is "probablytrue" or "more
likely than not" if any of the petitioner's supporting documentshave been deemedunreliable. The
preponderanceof the evidencestandardhingeson the petitioner'ssubmissionof relevant,probative,and
credibleevidence.Whenthecredibility of certainevidenceis questioned,theAAO cannotconcludethatthe
preponderanceof the evidencestandardhasbeenmet.
Whilethedirector'sfindingof willful misrepresentationhasbeenwithdrawn,theAAO cannotdismissthe
questionsthat havearisenregardingthe petitioner'scredibility. As such,theAAO will takeinto accountthe
abovefindingswhenconductingananalysisof thepetitioner'seligibility.
II. Eligibility
Thefirst eligibilityissueto beaddressedin thisproceedingiswhetherthepetitionerhassubmittedsufficient
evidencetoestablishthatit hasaqualifyingrelationshipwiththebeneficiary'sforeignemployer.Toestablish
a "qualifying relationship"underthe Act andthe regulations,the petitionermust showthat the beneficiary's
foreignemployerandtheproposedU.S.employerarethesameemployer(i.e.a U.S.entitywith a foreign
office)or relatedasa "parentandsubsidiary"or as"affiliates." Seegenerally§203(b)(1)(C)of theAct,
8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C);seealso8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(2)(providingdefinitionsof theterms"affiliate"and
"subsidiary").
Theregulationat8C.F.R.§204.5(j)(2)statesin pertinentpart:
Page6
Affiliatemeans:
(A) Oneof two subsidiariesbothof whichareownedandcontrolledby thesameparentor
individual;
(B) Oneof two legalentitiesownedandcontrolledby the samegroupof individuals,each
individual owningandcontrolling approximatelythe sameshareor proportionof each
entity;
* * *
Multinational meansthat the qualifying entity, or its affiliate, or subsidiary,conducts
businessin two or morecountries,oneof which istheUnited States.
Subsidiarymeansa firm, corporation,or otherlegalentityof which a parentowns,directly or
indirectly,morethanhalf of the entity andcontrolstheentity; or owns,directly or indirectly,
half of theentity andcontrolstheentity; or owns,directly or indirectly,50percentof a 50-50
joint ventureand has equal control and veto power over the entity; or owns, directly or
indirectly,lessthanhalfoftheentity,butin factcontrolstheentity.
Thedirector'sadversefindingstems,in part,from an inconsistencyin therecordconcerningthe claimed
ownershipoftheforeignentity. Aspreviouslynoted,whilethepetitioner'sinitialsupportletterindicatedthat
the beneficiarysold his ownershipinterestin the foreign employerto his businesspartner,the petitioner
subsequentlyalteredthe original claim, assertingthat it was made in error and that in fact it was the
beneficiary'spartnerwho relinquishedhis 50%ownershipin theforeignentityleavingthebeneficiaryasthe
foreignentity'ssoleowner.
Thedirectoralsonotedaninconsistencyconcerningthepetitioner'sown ownership.Specifically,thedirector
issueda notice of intent to deny (NOID) datedOctober8, 2008 in which he discussedScheduleE of the
petitioner's2005 and 2006 tax returns where the beneficiarywas identified as owner of 100% of the
petitioner'scommonstock. The directorpointedout that the informationput forth in the tax returnsis in
direct conflict with the petitioner'sown claim in which the petitionerassertsthat it is a wholly owned
subsidiaryof the foreignentity. Although the petitionerrespondedto theNOID by providing amendedtax
returnsto reflectits originalclaimof beingforeign-owned,the directorfoundthis evidence,whichwas
createdinresponsetoanadversefinding,tobeinsufficienttoresolvetheinconsistency.
On appeal,counselcriticizesthedirector'sfocusonthe foreignentity'sownership,assertingthatwhena U.S.
petitionerclaimsto bea wholly ownedsubsidiaryof a foreignentity,theforeignentity'sownershipis not
germaneto adeterminationof whetheror nota qualifyingrelationshipexists. Counsel'sargument,however,
restson theunderstandingthat the ownershipclaim regardingthe allegedparententity is not in question. In
light of theinconsistenciesthatthedirectorpointedoutin theNOIDandin thesubsequentdenial,theAAO
supportsthe director'srejectionof the petitioner'samendedtax returnsas a valid meansof resolvinga
previouslycreatedinconsistency.Oncean inconsistencyhasbeenobserved,it is the petitioner'sburdento
resolvethe inconsistencyby providingcompetentobjectiveevidencepointingto wherethetruth lies. Matter
of Ho, 19I&N Dec.at 591-92.Amendedtax returnsthatwerecreatedby thepetitioneror thepetitioner's
representativeafterthediscrepancywaspointedoutby thedirectorcannotbedeemedascompetentobjective
evidence.
Page7
Theregulationandcaselaw confirmthat ownershipandcontrolarethe factorsthat mustbe examinedin
determiningwhethera qualifyingrelationshipexistsbetweenUnitedStatesandforeignentitiesfor purposes
of this visaclassification.Matter of ChurchScientologyInternational,19I&N Dec.593(BIA 1988);seealso
MatterofSiemensMedicalSystems,Inc., 19I&N Dec.362(BIA 1986);MatterofHughes,18I&N Dec.289
(Comm. 1982). In the contextof this visa petition, ownershiprefersto the direct or indirect legal right of
possessionof the assetsof an entity with full power and authorityto control; control meansthe direct or
indirectlegalright andauthorityto directtheestablishment,management,andoperationsof anentity. Matter
of ChurchScientologyInternational,19I&N Dec.at 595.
As generalevidenceof a petitioner'sclaimedqualifyingrelationship,stockcertificatesalonearenot sufficient
evidenceto determinewhethera stockholdermaintainsownershipand control of a corporateentity. The
corporatestock certificateledger,stock certificateregistry, corporatebylaws, and the minutesof relevant
annualshareholdermeetingsmustalsobeexaminedto determinethetotalnumberof sharesissued,theexact
number issuedto the shareholder,and the subsequentpercentageownershipand its effect on corporate
control. Additionally, a petitioningcompanymustdiscloseall agreementsrelatingto thevoting of shares,the
distributionof profit, the managementand directionof the subsidiary,andany other factor affectingactual
controlof theentity. SeeMatter of SiemensMedicalSystems,Inc., 19I&N Dec.362. Without full disclosure
of all relevantdocuments,USCISis unableto determinetheelementsof ownershipandcontrol.
The information provided in the tax returns that the petitioner originally submitted indicate that the
beneficiary,ratherthanthe beneficiary'sforeignemployer,ownsthepetitioningentity. Thesedocumentsdo
not supportthe petitioner'sclaim of beinga wholly ownedsubsidiaryof the beneficiary'sforeign employer.
Going on record without supportingdocumentaryevidenceis not sufficient for purposesof meetingthe
burdenof proof in theseproceedings.Matter of Soffici,22 I&N Dec. 158,165(Comm.1998)(citing Matter
of TreasureCraft of California, 14I&N Dec. 190(Reg.Comm.1972)). If thebeneficiaryis claimedto bethe
ownerof boththe petitioningentity andthe foreignemployer,the definition of affiliate would applyandthe
petitionerwouldhaveto providecompetentobjectiveevidenceto establishthatthebeneficiaryis theownerof
both employersas indicatedby the tax returnsandforeign documents.SeeMatter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at
591-92.
In light of the doubtscreatedby inconsistentsupportingevidence,the AAO cannotconcurwith counsel's
assertionthat the foreign entity'sownershipis irrelevantin the presentmatter. It thereforefollows that the
AAO alsocannotconcludethatthepetitionerhasprovidedsufficientevidenceto establishtheexistenceof the
claimedparent-subsidiaryrelationshipbetweentheforeignandU.S.employers.
Additionally, theAAO findsthat evenif thepetitioner'sownershipwerenot disputed,asa matterof law, the
beneficiaryis ineligiblefor theclassificationsoughtbasedontheclaimthattheforeignparententity,which
thepetitionerclaimsasits owner,is a soleproprietorship.It is fundamentalto this immigrantclassification
thatthepetitionerestablishthatthebeneficiarywasemployedabroad"by a firm or corporationor otherlegal
entityor an affiliateor subsidiarythereof." Section203(b)(1)(C)of theAct. A soleproprietorshipis a
businessin whichonepersonoperatesthebusinessin his or herpersonalcapacity.Black'sLawDictionary
1398(7thEd. 1999).Unlikea corporationor otherlegalentity,a soleproprietorshipdoesnotexistasan
entity apartfrom the individual proprietor.SeeMatter of UnitedInvestmentGroup, 19 I&N Dec. 248, 250
(Comm.1984).
Page8
Thepetitionerclaimsthattheforeignentity is a soleproprietorshipwhich is ownedby thebeneficiary. Based
on this very claim, and in light of the definition of a sole proprietorship,the foreign businesscannotbe
deemeda firm or corporationor otherlegalentitywherea legalentity is anentity otherthana naturalperson.
Black'sLaw Dictionary 620 (6th Ed. 1991). As in the presentmatter,if the foreignbusinessis actually
operatingas a sole proprietorship,there is no foreign entity accordingto the legal definition and thus no
qualifyingrelationshipcanexist.
In summary,therecordshowsnumerousobstaclesandinconsistenciesthatpreventtheAAO from concluding
that a qualifying relationshipexistsbetweenthe petitionerandthe beneficiary'sforeign employer. Not only
are there unresolvedquestionsconcerningthe U.S. petitioner'sownership,but there are also considerable
deficienciesconcerningthe foreign entity'sownership. Thus,evenif the directordid not issuea finding of
willful misrepresentationandif theforeigndocumentsthat attestto theforeignentity'sownershipwerefound
to be valid, the effect of the documententitled "ReleaseAgreement,"in which purportedly
relinquishedhis ownershipof theforeignentity in favor of thebeneficiary,would beto precludetheexistence
of a qualifying relationship,which cannotexist when either the U.S. or the foreign employer is a sole
proprietorship. On the basis of the considerabledeficienciesthat are evident in the instant record of
proceeding,the AAO cannotconcludethat a qualifying relationshipexistsbetweenthe petitionerand the
beneficiary'sforeignemployerandthepetitioncannotbeapproved.
Thenexteligibility issueto beaddressedin this proceedingis whetherthebeneficiary'sforeignemployer
continuesto do business,which is definedastheregular,systematic,andcontinuousprovisionof goodsand/or
servicesby a firm, corporation,or otherentity anddoesnot includethe merepresenceof an agentor office.
8C.F.R.§204.5(j)(2).
On October2, 2008,thedirectorissuedaNOID instructingthepetitionerto provideadditionaldocumentationto
establishthattheforeignemployercontinuesto do business.Thedirectorexpresslystatedthatthehandwritten
invoicesand statementsof incomethat were submittedwere not sufficientto establishthat the beneficiary's
foreignemployercontinuesto dobusiness.
In response,thepetitionerprovidedbankstatements,payrollrecordsfor 2006-2008,photographs,andtaxreturns
for2006and2007.
Thedirectorneverthelessdeniedthe petitionin a decisiondatedFebruary18,2009finding thatthe submitted
documentsshowa limitednumberof bankingtransactionsduringa four-yearperiod, Thedirectorfurthernoted
thatthehandwrittenpayrollrecordsandlackof utility bills contributedto theadversefindings.
TheAAO agreeswith counsel'sargumentthatnoneof theabovefindings,eitherseparatelyor together,should
generallyserveasa basisfor determiningwhethera businessoperationis conductingbusinesson a regular,
systematic,and continuousbasis. Therefore,while the AAO acknowledgesthe petitioner'ssubmissionof
additionaltax returnsthatcontainforeigngovernmentstampsto showthattheywerefiled, suchdocumentsare
not sufficientto establishthat the foreignemployerhascontinuedto do businesson a regular,systematic,and
continuousbasis.Thepetitionerhasmaintainedtheclaimthattheforeignbusinessoperatesasa wholesalerof
textile products. As such,the AAO would expectto seeinvoicesand shippingdocumentsshowingthat the
foreignbusinesshascontinuedtopurchaseinventoryfromvendorsandsellthatinventoryto itswholesaleclients.
Bank documents,tax returns,andutility bills arenot sufficientto establishthat the foreignoperationhas
continuedto engagein thepurchaseandsalestransactionsthatarenecessaryto generateincome.Furthermore,
Page9
theAAO fmdsthatthedirectorwasjustified in expressingskepticismwhenreviewingthehandwrittendocuments
offeredby the petitioner. Again, while handwrittendocumentsmay otherwisebe sufficientin meetingthe
preponderanceof the evidencestandard,the submissionof documentsthat havebeenrightfully deemedas
unreliableorinvalidmayrenderthehandwrittendocumentsinsufficienttomeettheburdenof proof.SeeMatter
of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. In the presentmatter,the petitionerhasfailed to submit sufficient objective
evidenceto establishthatthebeneficiary'sforeignemployerhasandcontinuesto dobusinessabroad.
In orderto establisheligibility for theimmigrationbenefitsought,thepetitionermustprovideevidencethatit is a
multinationalentity,i.e.,anentitythatconductsbusinessin two or morecountries,oneof whichis theUnited
States. 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(2). As the recordlackssufficientdocumentationto establishthat the petitioneris
doingbusinessabroadthroughanaffiliate or subsidiary,theAAO cannotconcludethatthepetitionermeetsthe
definitionof multinational.Therefore,onthebasisof thisconclusion,thepetitioncannotbeapproved.
Theremainingissueto beaddressedin this proceedingis whetherthe beneficiarywasemployedabroadin a
qualifying managerialorexecutivecapacity.
Section101(a)(44)(A)oftheAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(44)(A),provides:
The term "managerialcapacity" meansan assignmentwithin an organizationin which the
employeeprimarily--
(i) managesthe organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or
componentof theorganization;
(ii) supervisesand controlsthe work of other supervisory,professional,or
managerial employees, or manages an essential function within the
organization,or a departmentor subdivisionof theorganization;
(iii) if anotheremployeeor otheremployeesare directlysupervised,hasthe
authority to hire and fire or recommendthoseas well as other personnel
actions (such as promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee
is directly supervised,functionsat a seniorlevel within the organizational
hierarchyor with respectto thefunctionmanaged;and
(iv) exercisesdiscretionover the day-to-dayoperationsof the activity or function
for which the employee has authority. A first-line supervisor is not
consideredto be acting in a managerialcapacitymerely by virtue of the
supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are
professional.
Section101(a)(44)(B)of theAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(44)(B),provides:
The term "executive capacity" meansan assignmentwithin an organizationin which the
employeeprimarily--
(i) directsthemanagementof theorganizationor a majorcomponentor function
of theorganization;
Page10
(ii) establishesthe goals and policies of the organization, component,or
function;
(iii) exerciseswide latitudein discretionarydecision-making;and
(iv) receivesonly generalsupervisionor direction from higher level executives,
theboardof directors,or stockholdersof theorganization.
In a letter datedMarch 10,2003,which the petitionersubmittedin supportof the Form I-140,
the then-presidentof the beneficiary'sforeign employer, provided the following list of the
beneficiary'sjob responsibilitiesduringhisemploymentabroadinthepositionofvice-president:
• Overallmanagementanddirectingof business[and]overseeingthegrowthanddevelopment
of businessin concertwith thepresidentof thecompany,
• Ensuringquality of theproductandserviceto customers,
• Assuringcosteffectivepurchasingandproductionplanning,
• Implementingleast-costinventorymanagementanddistribution,
• Financialmanagementto ensureprofit maximization,
• Settingup salestargetsandgrowth objectives,with long-termstrategicplanningfor the
business[.]
In thesubsequentlyissuedNOID, thedirectorinstructedthepetitionerto providea definitive statementlisting
the beneficiary'sjob duties,the percentageof time spentperformingeachduty, the beneficiary'sposition
within theforeignemployer'sorganizationalhierarchy,andthe numberof subordinatessupervisedaswell as
theirjob descriptionsandthequalificationsrequiredfortherespectivepositions.
In response,counselprovided a statementdated October 30, 2008 in which he statedthat the beneficiary
performedexecutiveand managerialjob dutiesduring his employmentabroad. Counselstatedthat the
petitioner reviewed sales reports and financial statements,explored growth markets and investment
opportunities,andhadauthorityoverthecompany'sgoalsandpolicies. Counselclaimedthatthebeneficiary
assumedthepositionasthecompany'spresidentafterheacquiredfull ownershipof thebusiness.
Additionally, thepetitionerprovideda statementdatedOctober21,2008from theforeign
employer'scurrentmanager,wholistedthefollowingnineelementsto describethebeneficiary'semployment
abroadin thepositionof vice president:
1. As Vice President,workwith andsupportthepresidentin themanagementandgrowthof the
business.
2. Review companyperformancebasedon quarterly and annual salesreportsand establish
annualsalestargetin conjunctionwith thepresident.
Page11
3. Reviewquarterlyandannualfinancialreportsandaccountsstatementsandestablishbudgets
andfinancialplanwith thepresidentin orderto achieveprofit maximization.
4. Exploregrowthmarketsfor company'sproductline in variousgeographicmarkets.
5. Exploreotherinvestmentopportunitiesin Indiaandelsewhere,includingi[n] theU.S.
6. Monitor competitiveandeconomicenvironmentsurroundingcompany'sbusiness.
7. Conductannualemployeeperformanceappraisalsand establishindividual employeegoals
andtargets.
8. Ensurefinancialdisciplineandinternalfinancialcontrol.
9. Reviewandestablishvariouspoliciesandproceduresfor the companysuchascosteffective
purchaseprocedures,efficient inventorymanagementsystems,quality assuranceprocedures,
customersserviceproceduresandmonitoringsystems.
furtherstatedthatin April 2005thebeneficiaryacquiredfull ownershipof theforeignbusinessand
continuedto carryout additionaldutiesin his newpositionaspresident,includin roviding overalldirection
and executiveleadershipand overseeinggrowth of the foreign business. indicatedthat the
beneficiarycontinuesto overseethe foreign business'sseniormanagementstaff to ensurethat they achieve
goalsandtargetsandcomplywith applicableregulations.
In thedirector'sFebruary19,2009decision,thedirectorconcludedthatthepetitionerfailedto establishthat
thebeneficiarywasemployedabroadin aqualifyingcapacity.Thedirectoralsocommentedontheclaimthat
thebeneficiarycontinuedto carryout his newly acquiredrole aspresidentof theforeignemployerdespitethe
fact that he hasresidedin the United States,without interruption,sinceprior to the datehe acquired
ownership and control of the foreign business.
In examining the executiveor managerialcapacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will first review the
beneficiary'sjob descriptionasonekey element. The actualdutiesthemselvesrevealthe true natureof the
employment.FedinBros.Co.,Ltd.v. Sava,724F. Supp.1103,1108(E.D.N.Y.1989),affd, 905F.2d41(2d.
Cir. 1990). In an effort to elicit the informationthat would enablethe directorto assessthe beneficiary's
employmentcapacity,thedirector'sNOID expresslyinstructedthepetitionerto list the specificjob dutiesthe
beneficiaryperformedduringhis employmentabroadandto assignapercentageof timeto eachof thelisted
tasks. Althoughthe petitioner'sresponseincludeda supplementaldescriptionof the beneficiary'sforeign
employment,the informationwas inadequateto conveya meaningfuldepictionof the beneficiary'sactual
daily job dutiesin his position asvice president. The petitionerprovidedno clarifying definition of what
taskswereperformedin managingbusinessgrowth,exploringgrowthmarketsandinvestmentopportunities,
ensuringfinancialdiscipline,andreviewingandestablishingpoliciesandprocedures.Without an express
definition of thespecifictasksthebeneficiaryperformedandtheamountof time heallocatedto eachtask,the
AAO is unable to affirmatively concludethat the beneficiary'semploymentabroadwas comprisedof
primarily managerialor executivejob duties. On the basisof this additionalfinding, the instantpetition
cannotbeapproved.
Page12
Furthermore,while not discussedin the director'sdecision,the AAO finds that the petitionerfailed to
establishthat the beneficiarywould be employedin a qualifying managerialor executivecapacityin his
proposedpositionwith theU.S.entity.
Thepetitioneris expresslyrequiredby regulationto clearly describethejob dutiesthe beneficiarywould be
expectedto performin his proposedemploymentwith theU.S.entity. 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(5).Although
counsel'sbrief includesa supplementaldescriptionof thebeneficiary'sproposedposition,the information
doesnot specifythebeneficiary'sactualdailyjob duties. For instance,thereis no indicationasto thespecific
tasksinvolvedin monitoringfinancialmanagement,overseeingthe vice presidentandmanager,or exploring
businessopportunities.Specificsareclearlyan importantindicationof whethera beneficiary'sdutiesare
primarily executiveor managerialin nature;otherwisemeetingthe definitionswould simply be a matterof
reiteratingtheregulations.FedinBros.Co.,Ltd. v. Sava,724F. Supp.1103. Furthermore,theAAO notes
that without documentaryevidenceto supportthe claim, the assertionsof counselwill not satisfy the
petitioner'sburdenof proof. Theunsupportedassertionsof counseldo not constituteevidence.Matterof
Obaigbena,19I&N Dec.533,534(BIA 1988);Matterof Laureano,19I&N Dec.1(BIA 1983);Matterof
Ramirez-Sanchez,17I&N Dec.503,506(BIA 1980).
An applicationor petitionthat fails to complywith the technicalrequirementsof the law maybe deniedby
theAAO evenif the ServiceCenterdoesnot identify all of the groundsfor denialin the initial decision. See
SpencerEnterprises,Inc. v. UnitedStates,229F. Supp.2d 1025,1043(E.D.Cal.2001),affd, 345F.3d683
(9th Cir. 2003);seealsoSoltanev. DOJ,381F.3d 143,145(3d Cir. 2004)(notingthattheAAO reviews
appealson a de novo basis). Basedon the additionalgroundof ineligibility discussedabove,this petition
cannotbeapproved.
Accordingly,thepetitionwill bedeniedfortheabovestatedreasons,with eachconsideredasanindependent
andalternativebasisfor denial.In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenof provingeligibilityfor thebenefit
soughtremainsentirelywith thepetitioner.Section291of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361.Thepetitionerhasnot
sustainedthatburden.
ORDER: The appealis dismissed.