dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management

(b)(6)
DATE : NOV 0 5 2013 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
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 
Fll...,E: 
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. § 1153(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 I-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, 
~~ Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
)'1-'WW.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the preference visa petition. The director 
dismissed the petitioner's two subsequent motions to reopen and reconsider the denial. The matter is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed . 
The petitioner, a Texas limited liability company, claims to have a qualifying relationship with 
the beneficiary's former employer in Mexico. It seeks to employ the 
beneficiary as its general manager. 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. § 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
The director denied the petition and dismissed the petitioner's subsequent motions based on a conclusion that 
the petitioner failed to establish: (1) that the beneficiary was employed by the foreign entity or would be 
employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity; and (2) that it has a qualifying 
relationship with the foreign entity. 
On appeal, counsel disputes the director's latest adverse decision and asserts that the petitioner previously 
received ineffective assistance from an individual who misrepresented himself as an authorized attorney. 
Counsel also contends that the director did not properly evaluate the petitioner's supporting evidence . While 
counsel states that additional supporting documents will be provided within thirty days, the record reflects 
that neither counsel nor the petitioner submitted additional evidence within the required timeframe. The 
record will be considered complete as presently constituted. 
I. The Law 
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 a firm, corporation or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary of that entity, 
and who are coming to the United States to work for the same entity, or its affiliate or subsidiary . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
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 
classification. The prospective employer in the United States must furnish a job offer in the form of a 
statement which indicates that the alien is tobe 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. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A), provides: 
The term "managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in 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. § 1101(a)(44)(B), provides : 
The term "executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily--
(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 
(b)(6)
Page4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(iv) receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, 
the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
Additionally, the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(j)(2) states in pertinent part: 
Affiliat e means: 
(A) One of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled by the same parent or 
individual; 
(B) One of two legal entities owned and controlled by the same group of individuals, each 
individual owning and controlling approximately the same share or proportion of each 
entity; 
* * * 
Multinational means that the qualifying entity, or its affiliate, or subsidiary, conducts 
business in two or more countries, one of which is the United States. 
Subsidiary means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity of which a parent owns, directly or 
indirectly, more than half of the entity and controls the entity ; or owns, directly or indirectly, 
half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, 50 percent of a 50-50 
joint venture and has equal control and veto power over the entity; or owns, directly or 
indirectly, less than half of the entity, but in fact controls the entity. 
II. Procedural History 
The record shows that the petitioner filed the Form I-140 on April 14, 2011 and submitted a number of 
supporting documents in an effort to establish eligibility for the above stated immigration benefit. The 
petitioner's submissions included various tax and financial documents , corporate and bank documents, as well 
as documents that address the beneficiary's former employment abroad and proposed U.S. employment. 
After reviewing the petitioner's submissions, the director determined that the petition did not warrant 
approval. Accordingly, on December 13, 2011, the director issued a request for evidence (RFE) instructing 
the petitioner to provide supplementary job descriptions for both positions, listing the beneficiary's specific 
daily job duties with each entity and the amount of time that was and would be allocated to the items listed. 
The director further instructed the petitioner to provide both entities' organizational charts, the petitioner's 
payroll records from January through November 2011, and employer quarterly reports for the first three 
quarters of 2011. The director observed that the petitioner did not provided IRS Form W-2 Wage and Tax 
statements for three individuals who were included in the petitioner's organizational chart, which the 
petitioner provided among its original supporting documents . The director advised the petitioner that any 
foreign language documents the petitioner wished to submit must be accompanied by certified English 
language translations establishing the translator's competency to accurately perform the necessary translation. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
The response, which was received on February 10, 2012, included job descriptions, organizational charts, <).nd 
payroll records as requested. Nevertheless, the director denied the petition in a decision dated April 18, 2012, 
concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed by the foreign entity or 
would be employed 
in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity . 
In response, the petitioner filed the first of two motions to reopen, which was supported by additional 
information concerning the beneficiary's foreign and proposed employment as well as numerous foreign 
language documents, which were not accompanied by certified English language translations. 
The director dismissed the petitioner's motion in a decision dated September 11, 2012. The director 
emphasized the petitioner's failure to provide certified translations for the foreign documents, which were 
provided with regard to the beneficiary's employment in Mexico , and further discussed the petitioner 's 
staffing with regard to the beneficiary's proposed employment. The director determined 
that the beneficiary 
would primarily perform job duties that are of a non-qualifying nature. Additionally, the director determined 
that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that the beneficiary has ownership and control 
of the foreign and U.S. entities. Specifically, the director noted that while the foreign entity's articles of 
incorporation indicate that the general manager would have control of the organization, the record indicates 
that the beneficiary assumed the role of president. The director further observed that the petitioner has not 
provided evidence to establish whether he or his sibling controls the U.S. entity given that each individual 
owns an equal share. 
On October 9, 2012 the petitioner filed a second motion to reopen and reconsider with various supporting 
documents, including a statement dated September 28, 2012 from translations of certain 
foreign language documents, evidence of employees' professional and educational credentials, and notices 
showing approvals of the petitioner's nonimmigrant petitions, which the petitioner previously filed on behalf 
of the same beneficiary. 
After reviewing the petitioner's motion and supporting evidence, the director issued a decision dated January 
22, 2013, dismissing the motion . The director concluded that the petitioner failed to submit sufficient 
evidence to show that it has an affiliate relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer, as claimed. The 
director determined that the beneficiary's support staff at the time of filing was primarily comprised of part­
time employees and thus concluded that neither the petitioner's support personnel at the time of filing nor the 
beneficiary ' s job description establishes that the beneficiary would primarily perform job duties within a 
qualifying managerial or executive capacity. Finally, the director declined to rely on the approvals of the 
petitioner's previously filed Form I-129 nonimmigrant petitions as indicators of the petitioner's eligibility in 
the matter at hand. The director properly noted that the approvals were issued in matters that dealt with 
separate records of proceeding and pointed to the petitioner's burden of proof in establishing eligibility in the 
instant matter, regardless of prior approvals in those separate proceedings . 
On appeal, counsel disputes the director's latest adverse decision, claiming that "the petition and subsequent 
motions were prepared by a person who mis-represented [sic] himself as an attorney authorized to practice 
before users in the United States. II Counsel also contends that the director did not properly evaluate the 
petitioner's supporting evidence. Counsel claims that the petitioner's employees are employed on a full-time, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
rather than on a part-time basis, contrary to the director's earlier finding. Lastly, while counsel states that 
additional supporting documents will be provided within thirty days, there is no indication that the record has 
been supplemented with any further evidence. 
III. Analysis 
Upon review, counsel's assertions are not sufficient to overcome the grounds for denial of the petition and 
subsequent dismissals of the motions to reopen and reconsider. 
First, with regard to counsel's claim that the petitioner was represented by someone who was not authorized 
to practice law before USCIS, there is no remedy available for a petitioner who assumes the risk of 
authorizing an unlicensed attorney or unaccredited representative to undertake representations on its behalf. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 292.1; see also Hernandez v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2008) ("non-attorney 
immigration consultants simply lack the expertise and legal and professional duties to their clients that are the 
necessary preconditions for ineffective assistance of counsel claims"). The AAO only considers complaints 
based upon ineffective assistance against accredited representatives. Cf Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 
(BIA 1988), affd, 857 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1988) (requiring an appellant to meet certain criteria when filing an 
appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel). In the present matter, despite the fact that the petitioner 
was assisted by in completing the Form 1-140, as indicated by Mr. signature at Part 9 of 
the petition, the record lacks evidence showing that the petitioner sought legal counsel from anyone other than 
current counsel whose Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Accredited Representative, 
was presented at the time of the petitioner's appeal. The record contains no other Form G-28or any evidence 
to establish that anyone other than the petitioner's corporate officers assisted with the compilation and 
submission of the supporting evidence. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of 
counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not 
constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N 
Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanche z, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
Counsel's remaining assertions pertain to the merits of the petitioner's claimed eligibility , specifically the 
beneficiary's former employment abroad, his proposed employment with the U.S. entity, and the petitioner' s 
qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's former employer. 
A. Employment in a Managerial or Executive Capacity 
The first two issues to be addressed in the present matter require an analysis of the job duties the beneficiary 
performed during his former employment with the foreign entity and the job duties that the beneficiary would 
perform in his proposed position with the petitioner. 
In general, when examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO reviews the 
totality of the record, starting first with the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's job duties. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(j)(5). A detailed job description is crucial, as the duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the 
beneficiary's foreign and proposed 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). The AAO will then consider this information in light of 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
other relevant factors, including (but not limited to) job descriptions of the beneficiary's subordinate 
employees, the nature of the business conducted by the entity or entities in question, the size of each entity's 
subordinate staff, and any other facts contributing to a comprehensive understanding of the beneficiary's 
actual roles in the two respective entities. 
In the present matter, the petitioner included brief job descriptions in its original supporting statement dated 
April 11, 2011. In addressing the beneficiary's proposed position with the U.S. entity, the petitioner stated 
that the beneficiary manages its administrative functions by overseeing personnel and company operations 
and working to expand the variety of locations where the petitioner's services can be offered. The beneficiary 
would also set the coml?any's goals and objectives, oversee training and staff management, and coordinate 
with operations in the Mexican entity. The petitioner stated that during his former employment abroad, the 
beneficiary assumed the role of head manager and was instrumental to the foreign entity's growth and 
business success. 
The petitioner also provided organizational charts pertaining to both companies. The petitioner's chart 
depicted the beneficiary as second from the top management tier, assuming the position of general manager 
with an "administrative" position as his sole direct subordinate. A supervisor of production and a sales person 
were depicted as the "administrative" employee's two subordinates, followed by a driver as the sales person's 
subordinate and five individuals (with undefined position titles) as the production supervisor's subordinates. 
The petitioner also provided an untranslated organizational chart pertaining to the foreign entity. Although 
the beneficiary was depicted as one of two employees at the top-most tier within the company's hierarchy, his 
position title was not identified. The general manager position was depicted as the only subordinate to the 
top-tier employees and it was the only position title that was written in English. The remaining position titles 
were not written in English and the chart was not accompanied by a certified English translation as required 
by 8 C.P.R.§ 103.2(b)(3). 
In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner supplemented the record with additional documents 
pertaining to the beneficiary's two positions. With regard to the beneficiary's former employment abroad, the 
petitioner provided a statement dated February 3, 2012 from the who identified himself as 
director. Mr. stated that the beneficiary was employed abroad in the position of general manager 
from July 2001 through July 2009. This information is inconsistent with the foreign entity's originally 
submitted organizational chart, where was identified as the company's general manager and 
subordinate to the beneficiary and Daniel Sandoval, the director who signed the RFE response statement. Mr. 
further stated that the beneficiary negotiated prices and contracts with materials and equipment 
suppliers, supervised business operations, created the logistics for collecting and delivering materials, 
provided accounting information to stockholders, projected expenses and elaborated on monthly budgets, 
managed the staff's time, visited existing customers and provided price quotes to new customers, monitored 
accounts payable and receivable, evaluated new business opportunities, recruited new employees, and 
supervised subordinate employees . The petitioner did not comply with the director's request for an 
assignment of time constraints to each of the beneficiary's individual job duties. 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)(l4) . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
An hourly breakdown of the beneficiary's proposed employment was included in a separate document, which 
also signed in his capacity as director. A number of the job duties that were previously 
attributed to the beneficiary's position abroad were also common to the beneficiary's proposed employment. 
A review of the above submissions indicates that the director properly concluded that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary ' s former employment abroad and his proposed position with the U.S. entity fit 
the statutory criteria of a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
Turning first to the beneficiary's employment with the foreign entity, the job description that was provided in 
response to the RFE indicates that a number of the beneficiary's duties, including negotiating contracts with 
various suppliers, visiting customers and providing new customers with price quotes, and recruiting new 
employees were indicative of operational and administrative tasks rather than the tasks that are performed 
within a qualifying managerial or executive capacity . While it is unclear how much of the beneficiary's total 
time was allocated to these non-qualifying job duties, this ambiguity is the direct result of the petitioner's 
failure to comply with the director's express RFE instructions, which thereby precludes U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services from being able to gauge how much of the beneficiary's time was allocated to tasks of a 
qualifying nature . While no beneficiary is required to allocate 100% of his or her time to managerial- or 
executive-level tasks, the petitioner must establish that the non-qualifying tasks the beneficiary performed 
during his former employment with the foreign entity were only incidental to the position in question. An 
employee who "primarily" performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not 
considered to be "primarily" employed in a managerial or executive capacity. See sections 101(a)(44)(A) and 
(B) of the Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial or executive duties); see 
also Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm. 1988). Given that the 
petitioner chose not to assign time constraints to the beneficiary's assigned duties, it cannot be determined 
that the beneficiary had more likely than not devoted his time primarily to the performance of tasks within a 
qualifying capacity. 
In addition to the ambiguity regarding the time spent performing non-qualifying tasks, a number of the 
activities that were listed in describing the beneficiary's employment abroad were themselves ambiguous in 
terms of the specific tasks the beneficiary was actually performing. For instance, the job description indicated 
that the beneficiary was required to "elaborate monthly budgets." However, it is unclear what the term 
"elaborate" signifies in the context of a monthly budget and what specific act the beneficiary performed. 
The job description also indicated that the beneficiary managed "personnel's time," but did not explain what 
specific actions the beneficiary performed in his time management responsibility or why the beneficiary was 
responsible for time management of personnel when he was depicted as overseeing a single employee within 
the foreign entity's organizational hierarchy . Simply put, it is unclear why the beneficiary would have been 
responsible for managing the staff's time when, according to the foreign entity's organizational chart, most 
members of the staff appear to have had an immediate supervisory to oversee their work. Lastly, the claim 
that the beneficiary supervised subordinates in their execution of assigned tasks is not credible when 
considered within the scope of the foreign entity's organizational chart, which, as stated above, indicated that 
most of the company's employees had immediate supervisors or managers, other than the beneficiary, to 
oversee their work. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
Although the petitioner provided additional evidence in support of its first motion to reopen and reconsider, 
including a statement from the beneficiary further describing his employment abroad, that statement also 
refers to the beneficiary's former position as that of general manager in direct contradiction to the foreign 
entity's organizational chart , which identifies as the company ' s general manager and 
altogether fails to specify the beneficiary's position title. Also at odds with the previously submitted 
organizational chart is the beneficiary's claim that he managed four departments and supervised the work of 
two managers, a general accountant, three supervisors, and three professional employees. First, regardless of 
the petitioner's failure to provide a certified translation of the foreign entity's organizational chart, a general 
overview of the chart does not support the claim that the foreign entity was divided into four departments. 
Second, as indicated above, the foreign entity's organizational chart indicates that the beneficiary had only 
one immediate subordinate employee- the company's general manager. There is no indication from looking 
at the chart that the beneficiary had the subordinates he listed in the statement he submitted to support the 
petitioner's first motion. 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). 
Furthermore, the beneficiary's supplemental job description goes on to list two additional non-qualifying 
tasks - conducting market research and training employees - without providing any indication as to the 
amount of time the beneficiary allocated to these and other non-qualifying job duties that were listed in the 
earlier job description. Again, the mere fact that the beneficiary performed non-qualifying tasks as part of his 
former employment does not lead to a finding of ineligibility. However, the petitioner maintains the burden 
of demonstrating that the non-qualifying tasks the beneficiary performed during his employment abroad did 
not consume the primary portion of the beneficiary's time. The submissions in support of the first motion 
were not sufficient to enable the petitioner to meet this burden. 
Finally, the additional job description: the petitioner provided in response to the second motion restates much 
of the information that was provided in the previously submitted job descriptions and fails to address or 
reconcile the inconsistencies between the job descriptions and the foreign entity's organizational chart in 
terms of establishing who the beneficiary supervised. Although the petitioner provided letters from the 
foreign entity's employees, who repeated the information the beneficiary provided in his earlier statement as 
to the subordinates he supervised, such claims from third parties do not serve as independent objective 
evidence that is needed to resolve the inconsistencies between the beneficiary's claims and the organizational 
chart that depicted the foreign entity's staffing hierarchy. 
The evidence of record when reviewed in totality shows that the petitiOner submitted ambiguous and 
inconsistent information that lacks sufficient probative value. Thus, given these considerable shortfalls, the 
AAO cannot conclude that the beneficiary more likely than not allocated his time primarily to the 
performance of tasks within a qualifying managerial or executive capacity and on the basis of this initial 
conclusion the instant petition must be denied. 
Next, turning to the evidence that pertains to the beneficiary's proposed position with the U.S. entity, the 
hourly breakdown that the petitioner provided in response to the RFE plays a pivotal role. In the present 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
matter, the beneficiary's job description indicates that a considerable portion of the beneficiary's time would 
be spent performing various operational and administrative tasks, including supplying materials for the 
petitioner's customers , visiting customers, paying state and federal taxes, carry out out various banking 
transactions, providing price quotes for and negotiating with new customers, and writing sales reports for the 
director's review . While none of these tasks, when viewed individually, indicates that the beneficiary would 
not be employed in a managerial or executive capacity, when evaluated together, these non-qualifying tasks 
would consume twenty one hours of the beneficiary's time during an average week. Furthermore, while the 
petitioner did not define the beneficiary's actual role with respect to collecting accounts payable, exports to 
Mexico, and "general supervision of full movements of [the petitioner]," which would cumulatively comprise 
another eight and a half hours of the beneficiary's time, such duties may also fall outside of the parameters of 
what is deemed as being within a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. Regardless, the mere fact that 
at least twenty one hours of the beneficiary's time would be allocated to non-qualifying tasks undermines the 
petitioner's claims that the beneficiary would primarily perform qualifying managerial or executive duties. 
Although the petitioner provided additional statements in the course of filing two motions, such evidence, 
which included statements from the beneficiary and was not sufficient to establish that the 
beneficiary's time would be rimarily allocated to tasks within a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
Specifically, claims that the beneficiary would create, implement, and monitor the 
petitioner's current and future contracts, formulate company policies, oversee managerial staff, and oversee 
the petitioner's finances until a financial manager is hired, are overly broad statements that fail to specify the 
beneficiary's role and specific tasks. As previously indicated, specifics are clearly an important indication of 
whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily executive or managerial in nature; otherwise meeting the 
definitions would simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. 
Supp. 1103. Further, although Mr. indicated that the petitioner has since hired a financial manager 
and is currently working on hiring a production manager, the petitioner's eligibility is based on the facts and 
circumstances that existed when the petition was first filed. See Matter of Katigbak , 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 
(eomm'r 1971). 
Additionally, as previously noted in the director's second decision regarding the petitioner's previously 
approved nonimmigrant petitions, each nonimmigrant and immigrant petition is a separate record of 
proceeding with a separate burden of proof. Therefore, each petition must stand on its own individual merits. 
USCIS is not required to assume the burden of searching through previously provided evidence submitted in 
support of other petitions to determine the approvability of the petition at hand in the present matter. The 
approval of a nonimmigrant petition in no way guarantees that users will approve an immigrant petition 
filed on behalf of the same beneficiary. It is not uncommon for users to deny an 1-140 immigrant petition, 
despite having approved a prior nonimmigrant r-129 L-1 petition. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 
293 F. Supp. 2d at 25; IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.e. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. 
Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). The burden is on the petitioner to establish by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the beneficiary would be employed in a qualifying capacity. Any time the 
petitioner fails to meet that burden, regardless of prior filings, users must deny the petition, regardless of 
any previously approved petition(s). See, e.g. Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 r&N Dec. at 
597. Neither USCrS nor any agency is required to treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex 
Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th eir. 1987), cert. denied , 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
Lastly, regarding counsel's claim on appeal in which he contends that the director did not properly evaluate 
the evidence of the petitioner's full-time employees, the AAO has examined the petitioner's quarterly wage 
report for the 2011 second quarter and the petitioner's earnings report for 2011. These documents indicate 
that the petitioner's staff was largely employed on a full-time basis. Thus, the director's observation to the 
contrary was not warranted. However, merely demonstrating that the petitioner had full-time employees at 
the time of filing does not establish that the petitioner was able to relieve the beneficiary from having to 
primarily perform non-qualifying tasks at the time of filing . As discussed earlier in this decision, the job 
description offered to address the beneficiary's proposed employment does not establish that the beneficiary 
would allocate his time primarily to performing job duties of a nature. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to 
establish that the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
B. Qualifying Relationship 
Finally, the AAO will address the issue of the petitioner's claimed qualifying relationship with the 
beneficiary's foreign employer. 
A discrepancy in the record was first noted in the director's December 13, 2011 request for evidence, in which 
the director observed that the petitioner's stock certificate, which showed the beneficiary's foreign employer 
as sole owner of the U.S. entity, is inconsistent with the petitioner's 2010 tax return, which indicated that the 
beneficiary and are equal owners of the U.S. entity. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner provided an undated statement signed by who claimed 
that on February 11, 2011, the petitioner held a board of director's meeting where it was decided that the 
petitioner's stock would be redistributed with equal portions being divested to the beneficiary and Mr. 
In support of Mr. statement, the petitioner provided two stock certificates reflecting the 
new ownership. 
In support of the petitioner's first motion before the director, the petitioner submitted a statement dated May 
3, 2012 in which the beneficiary claimed to own 90% of the foreign entity's stock while sharing 50/50 
ownership of the U.S. entity's stock with The petitioner also provided a partial two-page 
translation of a foreign document, which indicated that the beneficiary owned one of the foreign entity's three 
equity shares and that his monetary contribution was $45,000 of a total $50,000. The translation was 
accompanied by a copy of the original 
foreign document, which consisted of 21 pages. 
In an adverse decision dated September 11, 2012, the director pointed out that while the foreign entity's 
articles of incorporation indicate that the foreign entity is a manager-run company, the beneficiary's position 
is that of president, which thus indicates that the beneficiary is not a manager and does not run the foreign 
entity. The director further determined that while the petitioner provided evidence indicating that the 
beneficiary and his brother equally own the petitioning entity, the record lacks evidence to show which of the 
individuals actually controls that entity. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
In response to the director's adverse determinations, the petitioner resubmitted the foreign entity's articles of 
incorporation and its partial translation. 
In reviewing the supporting documentation on record, the AAO finds that the petitioner failed to provide 
evidence to support the claimed affiliate relationship between itself and the beneficiary's employer abroad. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(3) states the following with regard to the submission of foreign 
language documents : 
Any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a 
full English language translation which the translator has certified as complete and accurate, 
and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign 
language into English. 
In the present matter, the record indicates that in support of its first motion, the petitioner provided two 
documents containing the foreign company's name, thus indicating that both pertain to the foreign company. 
One document appears to represent the foreign entity's articles of incorporation consisting of seven pages, 
while the second document, also appearing to consist of numerous acts and clauses, consists of twenty one 
pages. The translation pertaining to each foreign document consists of two pages. Given the length of the 
original documents and the length of their respective translations, neither can be deemed to be a full 
translation of the original document and thus neither translation meets the regulatory provisions specified 
above. Accordingly, the petitioner's failure to submit certified translations of the documents precludes the 
AAO from being able to determine whether the evidence supports the petitioner's claims. See 8 C.P.R. § 
103.2(b)(3). Therefore, the petitioner failed to submit probative evidence to establish that it has a qualifying 
affiliate relationship with the beneficiary's former employer abroad and the appeal will be dismissed for this 
additional reason. 
IV. Conclusion 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. 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. § 1361. The petitioner has not 
sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.