dismissed EB-1C Case: Cargo Transportation

DATE: OCT 0 3 2012 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant 
to Section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § I I 53(b)(1)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen 
in accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1 )(i) requires any motion to be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscls.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a Florida corporation that is engaged in cargo transportation. It seeks to employ the 
beneficiary as its manager. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an 
employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(I)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.c. § I I 53(b)(1)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
The director denied the petition on March 4,2011, concluding that: (1) the petitioner failed to establish 
that the beneficiary's employment abroad was within a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, (2) 
the petitioner failed to establish that the foreign company has been doing business, and (3) the petitioner 
failed to establish that the beneficiary'S proposed employment with the U.S. entity would be within a 
qualifying managerial or executive capacity. The director also found that the petitioner failed to provide 
information about the employees supervised or managed by the beneficiary at both the foreign company 
and the petitioner, including payroll records, position titles, and educational levels, leaving the director 
unable to determine if the beneficiary supervised the work of other managerial or professional employees. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. 
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 corning to the United States to work for the same entity, or its affiliate or 
subsidiary. 
A United States employer may file a petition on Form 1-140 for classification of an alien under section 
203(b)(1 )(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. No labor certification is required for 
-Page 3 
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 to be employed in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity. Such a statement must clearly describe the duties to be perfonned by the alien. 
On September 2, 2010, the director put the petitioner on notice of the required evidence and gave a 
reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the visa petition was adjudicated. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b )(8). Specifically, the director requested, inter alia, evidence of the employees the beneficiary 
supervised or managed at the foreign company, and the employees she will supervise or manage in the 
U.S. In addition, the director requested payroll records of these employees, their position titles and 
duties, and their educational level. In response, the petitioner failed to provide the requested evidence. 
Instead the petitioner submitted an organizational chart for the foreign company that was not in English, 
and that did not list any individuals supervised or managed by the beneficiary, and did not list their duties 
or educational level. In addition, the petitioner did not provide an organizational chart for the petitioner. 
The director denied the petition after noting that the petitioner failed to submit the requested evidence. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(viii) states that the director may request additional evidence in 
appropriate cases. Although specifically requested by the director, the petitioner did not provide the 
requested evidence. The petitioner's failure to submit this information cannot be excused. The failure to 
submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the 
petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l4). The director appropriately denied the petition, in part, for failure to 
submit requested evidence. 
Where, as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an 
opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on 
appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 
533 (BIA 1988). If the petitioner had wanted the submitted evidence to be considered, it should have 
submitted the documents in response to the director's request for evidence. ld. Under the circumstances, 
the AAO need not and does not consider the sufficiency of the evidence submitted on appeal. 
Consequently, the appeal will be dismissed. 
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. Due to the failure to provide the requested 
evidence, the petitioner has not met its burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.