dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management

id;&t&i%u &ded W 
prevent c1W ~wmanted 
invasion of-rial 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
 MAY 0 2 2008 
LIN 05 239 50994 
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 futher inquiry must be made to that office. 
/Robert v* P. Wiemann, 
(()Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center. The 
petitioner subsequently appealed the director's decision to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), where 
the director's decision was withdrawn and the matter was remanded for further consideration. The director 
has since requested and received additional submissions, which he reviewed and, in turn, reopened the matter 
in order to issue another adverse decision denying the petition. That matter has been certified to the AAO for 
review. The AAO will affirm the director's decision. 
The petitioner is a limited liability company organized in the State of Alaska. It seeks to hire the beneficiary 
as its co-ownerlmanager. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an employment- 
based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
5 1 153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
The director initially denied the petition on the basis that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary 
was employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a qualifylng managerial or executive 
position. While the AAO agreed with a number of the director's findings, it was determined that additional 
documentation should be requested prior to making a final determination. Accordingly, the matter was 
remanded with instructions to the director to request fiuther documentation. 
In an effort to comply with the AAO's instructions, the director issued a request for additional evidence dated 
March 12, 2007. The director reiterated the various anomalies previously discussed in the AAO's decision 
with regard to the foreign company's and U.S. petitioner's staffing as well as the lack of documentation 
establishing that the beneficiary was employed abroad for one full year prior to his non-immigrant entry. See 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5Cj)(3)(i)(B). Lastly, the director instructed the petitioner to provided documentation 
establishing its ability to pay the beneficiary's proffered wage as specified in 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(g)(2). 
As noted in the director's well-reasoned decision, counsel for the petitioner provided a lengthy response that 
was reviewed and thoroughly analyzed in light of the regulatory requirements as well as the AAO's prior 
observations. While the director favorably found that the petitioner submitted adequate documentation 
establishing its ability to pay, he issued the following adverse findings: 1) the petitioner failed to establish 
that the beneficiary had the requisite one year of employment abroad with a qualifying entity; 2) the petitioner 
failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifylng capacity where the primary 
portion of the duties performed were within a managerial andlor executive capacity; and 3) the petitioner 
failed to establish that the beneficiary's prospective employment within the U.S. organization would primarily 
involve the performance of qualifying managerial or executive level tasks. 
The director acknowledged the petitioner's response to the RFE, noting that the documentation was 
insufficient to overcome the adverse findings with regard to the three remaining issues dealing with the 
applicant's foreign and prospective employment. The director specifically noted that the petitioner 
resubmitted previously submitted job duties for the beneficiary's foreign and U.S. positions without 
supplementing these descriptions to address the deficiencies noted by the AAO. The director also found that 
the petitioner failed to resolve the irregularity within the foreign and U.S. entities' organizational structures 
where various employees were shown as simultaneously occupying multiple positions in both entities. 
In summary, upon reviewing the record in its totality, the AAO finds no error in the director's determinations, 
which accurately address the numerous deficiencies in the instant record. As such, the AAO hereby adopts 
and affirms the director's decision dated September 4,2007. 
The petition will be denied for all of the director's stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. 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 
sustained that burden. 
ORDER: 
 The director's decision dated September 4,2007 is affirmed.