dismissed EB-1C Case: Convenience Store

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:DEC2 6 2012 OFFICE:TEXASSERVICECENTER
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionforAlienWorkerasaMultinationalExecutiveorManagerPursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase.All of thedocuments
relatedtothismatterhavebeenreturnedtotheofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believethe AAO inappropriatelyappliedthe law in reachingits decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopenin
accordancewith the instructionson FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,with a feeof $630. The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha motioncanbe foundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.Do not file any motion
directly with theAAO. Pleasebeawarethat8C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotiontobefiled within
30 daysof the decisionthat themotion seeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
RonRosenberg
ActingChief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION:Thepreferencevisapetitionwasdeniedby theDirector,TexasServiceCenter.Thematteris
nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOfñce(AAO)onappeal.Theappealwill bedismissed.
Thepetitioneris a Texasentitythat seeksto employthebeneficiaryasits presidentandgeneralmanager.
Accordingly,thepetitionerendeavorstoclassifythebeneficiaryasanemployment-basedimmigrantpursuant
to section203(b)(1)(C)of the ImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ ll53(b)(1)(C), as a
multinationalexecutiveor manager.
In supportof theForm I-140thepetitionersubmitteda statementdatedApril 29, 2004,whichcontained
relevantinformationpertainingto the petitioner'seligibility, includingan overviewof the petitioner's
businessand a brief descriptionof the beneficiary'sproposedemploymentwith the U.S. entity. The
petitioneralsoprovidedthepetitioner'scertificateof organizationandarticlesof organization,thepetitioner's
organizationalchartlistingthepositiontitlesthatcomprisethepetitioningorganization,quarterlyandannual
taxdocuments,acopyof thepetitioner'slease,andphotographsof theleasedpremises.
Thedirectorreviewedthepetitioner'ssubmissionsanddeterminedthatthepetitiondid not warrantapproval
Thedirectorthereforeissuedtworequestsfor evidence(RFE)--oneissuedonAugust12,2005andtheother
on January13,2010. In the first RFE,thedirectorinstructedthepetitionerto provide,in part,a detailed
descriptionof the beneficiary'sproposedemployment,includingsupplementaljob descriptionslisting the
beneficiary'sjob dutiesin her foreignandproposedemploymentas well as evidencedemonstratingthe
existenceof aqualifyingrelationshipbetweenthebeneficiary'sforeignandproposedemployment.
Thepetitioner'sresponseincludeda statementfrom counseldatedNovember10,2005in which counsel
provideda percentagebreakdownlisting the beneficiary'sdutiesand generaljob responsibilitiesin her
respectivepositionswith the foreign and U.S. entities. The petitioneralso providedboth entities'
organizationalchartsandquarterlyemployer'sreportsfor thepetitioningentity identifyingfive employees
duringthetimeperiodthepetitionwasfiled.
In thesubsequentRFE,thedirectoronceagainaddressedtheabovethreeissues,instructingthepetitionerto
submit evidence of the foreign entity's purchase of the petitioner's stock and detailed job descriptions listing
the beneficiary's individual job duties in her foreign and proposedpositions and the amount of time the
beneficiary allocatedand would allocate to eachtask. The director also askedthe petitioner to provide the
names,job duties, and educational levels of the beneficiary's subordinatesin her respectivepositions with
bothentities.
The petitioner'sresponseincludedan undatedstatementfrom counselin which counselreferredto the
petitioneras a wholly ownedsubsidiaryof the beneficiary'sclaimedforeignemployer.
Counselreferredto the petitioner'sstock certificate,articlesof organization,and the foreign entity's
partnershipdeedas evidenceof the petitioner'squalifying relationshipwith the beneficiary'sforeign
employer.Thepetitionerdid notprovidetherequestedevidenceshowingthattheforeignentitypaidfor its
claimedownershipof thepetitioner'sstock.
With regardto the beneficiary'semploymentabroad,counselstatedthat the beneficiaryworkedas a
managingdirectorfor Om Trading and providedthe samepercentagebreakdownthat was previously
incorporatedin thestatementcounselsubmittedearlierin responseto thefirstRFE.
Page3
In responseto thedirector'srequestfor evidencepertainingto thebeneficiary'sproposedposition,counsel
providedbackgroundinformationabout the conveniencestore industry, which was accompaniedby
generalizedjob dutiesanda percentagebreakdownwhichshowedtime constraintsassignedto eachof six
categories-managementdecisions,companyrepresentation,financialdecisions,supervisionof day-to-day
functions,businessnegotiations,andorganizationaldevelopment.
After reviewingtherecord,thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionerfailedto establishthatthebeneficiary
wasemployedabroadandwouldbeemployedin herproposedpositionwith the U.S.entityin a qualifying
managerialor executivecapacity. The directorquestionsthepetitioner'sreferenceto asthe
beneficiary'sforeignemployer,notingthatthepetitionerhasnotprovidedevidenceshowingthat
is in anywayrelatedto thepetitioneror theforeignentitythatis claimedto bethepetitioner'sowner. The
directorthereforeissuedadecisiondatedMarch30,2010denyingthepetition.
On appeal,counselsubmitsa brief disputingthedirector'sadversefindingsandaskstheAAO to consider
additionalbusinessdocumentspertainingto theforeignentity. Althoughcounselgenerallyacknowledgesthe
regulatoryprovisionrequiringthepetitionerto demonstratethebeneficiary'squalifyingemploymentabroad,
counseldoesnot actually addressthis issueor attemptto overcomethe director'sadverseconclusion
regardingthisissue.Counselalsofailsto acknowledgeor addressthequestionablereferenceto
asthebeneficiary'semployerabroad,whichcontradictstheclaimthat wasthebeneficiary's
foreignemployerandleavesopenthepossibilitythat thebeneficiary'sforeignemployerandherproposed
employerin the UnitedStatesdonot havea qualifyingrelationship.It is incumbentuponthepetitionerto
resolveany inconsistenciesin the recordby independentobjectiveevidence.Any attemptto explainor
reconcilesuchinconsistencieswill not sufficeunlessthe petitionersubmitscompetentobjectiveevidence
pointingtowherethetruthlies. MatterofHo, 19I&N Dec.582,591-92(BIA 1988).
In lightof counsel'sfailureto addressthebeneficiary'semploymentabroadonappeal,theAAO findsthatthe
petitionerhasfailed to overcomethe director'sadverseconclusion-that the petitionerfailedto provide
sufficientevidenceshowingthatthebeneficiarywasemployedabroadin aqualifyingmanagerialor executive
capacity.
With regard to the beneficiary's proposed employment with the U.S. entity, counsel restatesmuch of the
information that he has provided thus far, referring to the beneficiary as leader of "the senior management
team" with discretionaryauthority over hiring and firing personnel,setting budgets"within the firm,"
establishinggoalsandpolicies,andsupervisingotherprofessionalandmanagerialemployees.
Aller consideringthe counsel'sappellatebrief, the AAO finds that counsel'sassertionsarequestionable,
unpersuasive,andoverallinsufficientto establisheligibility. As counselhasnotprovidedanystatementson
appealto addresstheadversefindingconcerningthebeneficiary'semploymentabroad,theAAO's discussion
belowwill focusonthebeneficiary'sproposedemploymentwith theU.S.petitioner.
Section203(b)of theAct statesin pertinentpart:
(1) PriorityWorkers.-- Visasshallfirst bemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswho
arealiensdescribedin anyof thefollowingsubparagraphs(A) through(C):
Page4
(C)CertainMultinationalExecutivesandManagers.- An alienis described
in this subparagraphif thealien,in the 3 yearsprecedingthe time of the
alien'sapplicationfor classificationand admissioninto the United States
underthis subparagraph,hasbeenemployedfor at least1yearby a firm or
corporationor otherlegalentityor anaffiliateor subsidiarythereofandwho
seeksto entertheUnitedStatesin orderto continueto renderservicesto the
sameemployeror to a subsidiaryor affiliate thereofin a capacitythatis
managerialor executive.
Thelanguageof thestatuteis specificin limiting thisprovisionto only thoseexecutivesandmanagerswho
havepreviouslyworkedfora firm, corporationorotherlegalentity,oranaffiliateor subsidiaryof thatentity,
andwhoarecomingtotheUnitedStatestoworkfor thesameentity,or itsaffiliateor subsidiary.
A United Statesemployermay file a petitionon Form I-140 for classificationof an alienundersection
203(b)(1)(C)of theAct asa multinationalexecutiveor manager.No laborcertificationis requiredfor this
classification.Theprospectiveemployerin the UnitedStatesmustfurnisha job offer in the form of a
statementwhichindicatesthatthealienis to beemployedin theUnitedStatesin a managerialor executive
capacity.Suc]3a statementmustclearlydescribethedutiestobeperformedbythealien.
As notedabove,theremainingissueto be addressedin this discussionis the beneficiary'semployment
capacityin herproposedpositionwith thepetitioningU.S.entity. Specifically,theAAO will examinethe
recordto determinewhetherthepetitionersubmittedsufficientevidenceto establishthatit wouldemploythe
beneficiaryin theUnitedStatesin aqualifyingmanagerialorexecutivecapacity.
Section101(a)(44)(A)of theAct, 8 U.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 adepartmentor subdivisionof theorganization;
(iii) if anotheremployeeor otheremployeesare directly supervised,has the
authorityto hire andfire or recommendthoseas well as otherpersonnel
actions(suchaspromotionandleaveauthorization),or if nootheremployee
is directlysupervised,functionsat a seniorlevelwithin theorganizational
hierarchyorwith respecttothefunctionmanaged;and
(iv) exercisesdiscretionovertheday-to-dayoperationsof theactivityor function
for which the employeehas authority. A first-line supervisoris not
consideredto be actingin a managerialcapacitymerelyby virtue of the
supervisor'ssupervisoryduties unless the employeessupervisedare
professional,
Page5
Section101(a)(44)(B)of theAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(44)(B),provides:
The term "executivecapacity"meansan assignmentwithin an organizationin which the
employeeprimarily--
(i) directsthemanagementof theorganizationor amajorcomponentor function
of theorganization;
(ii) establishesthe goals and policies of the organization,component,or
function;
(iii) exerciseswidelatitudein discretionarydecision-making;and
(iv) receivesonly generalsupervisionor directionfrom higherlevelexecutives,
theboardof directors,or stockholdersof theorganization.
In examiningthe executiveor managerialcapacityof the beneficiary,.the AAO will look first to the
petitioner'sdescriptionof thebeneficiary'sproposedjob duties. See8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(5).TheAAO will
then considerthis informationin light of otherrelevantfactors,suchas the petitioner'sorganizational
hierarchy,thebeneficiary'spositiontherein,andthepetitioner'soverallability to relievethebeneficiaryfrom
havingto primarilyperformthedailyoperationaltasks.
Thepetitionerfailedto provideanadequatedescriptionof thebeneficiary'sproposedemploymentwithin the
contextof thepetitioner'sconveniencestorebusiness,whichconsistsof oneretail locationoutfittedwith a
staffof five employeesat thetimeof filing thepetition. Althoughcounselhasofferedjob descriptionsthat
focus on the beneficiary's discretionary authority and placementwithin the petitioning entity, severalof his
assertionsare questionableand seeminglyoverlookthe natureand scopeof the petitioner'sbusiness
operation.For instance,on appeal,counselrefersto thepetitionerasa firm andstatesthatthebeneficiary
"fundsprojectsthatsupportstrategy."However,referringto thegasstation/conveniencestoreoperationasa
firm is misleadingandimpliesthatthepetitioningcompanyhasa morecomplexorganizationandstaffing
structure than the one actually in place at the time of filing the petition. Counsel's statements also fail to
include what is meantby funding projectsor what specific strategiesthebeneficiary considers.
Althoughcounselalsoassertsthatthebeneficiaryis responsiblefor businessexpansion,therecordcontains
no evidencethat the petitionerhasexperiencedany expansionin termsof its work force or scopeof
operationssinceit commenceddoingbusinesspriorto thefiling of thepetition. Similarly,counselprovided
noinformationto establishwhatrolethebeneficiaryplaysin marketingthepetitioner'sbusiness,thusfailing
to ruleoutthepossibilitythatthebeneficiarywoulddirectlyperformmarketing-relatedtasks,particularlyin
lightof thefactthatnoneof thepetitioner'sotheremployeeswereactuallyassignedanymarketingtasks.
Next,theAAO findsthatcounsel'sclaimthatthebeneficiary"workswith themanagementheadsto ensure
properexecutionof services"lackscredibility,asthereis no evidencethatthepetitioneractuallyemploys
"managementheads"within its organization. As previouslystated,the AAO cannotsimply consider
counsel'sstatementsoutsidethe contextof the petitioner'sactualbusinessoperation. The petitioner's
businessoperationconsistsof a gasstationandconveniencestore. Despitethemanagerialandsupervisory
positiontitlesincludedin thepetitioner'sorganizationalchart,thejob descriptionsthataccompaniedthechart
indicatedthatthepetitioneremployedtwoalternatingmanagerswhowereoverseeingandassistingthework
Page6
of a cashier.Suggestingthatanyof theseindividualsaremanagementheadsor arepartof a "management
team"is a distortionof theactualfactsaspresentedin thejob descriptionsandemployer'squarterlyreport,
whichindicatesthatthepetitioneremployednomorethanfive individuals,includingthebeneficiary,at the
timethepetitionwasfiled.
Whilecounselalsoindicatesthatthebeneficiarywill developandimplementbusinesspoliciesandpromote
sales,hehasnotactuallyexplainedwhichdutiesthebeneficiarywouldperformona dailybasisin orderto
successfullymeetthesebroadjob responsibilities.Similarly,counselstatesthatthebeneficiarywill meet
with "appropriateofficials,"negotiateserviceagreements,makepresentationsof servicesto companyheads,
anddirectthe completionof the services. The AAO finds that theseassertionslack credibility andare
generallyinapplicablewithin the scopeof a gasstation/conveniencestorewherethe petitioner'sprimary
objectiveis to sellgasandgoodstypicallyfoundin a conveniencestore. It is unclearwhich"officials" the
beneficiarywouldneedto meet,whythebeneficiarywouldneedto makepresentationsaboutsellinggasand
conveniencestoregoods,and who would be the intendedaudienceduring theseallegedpresentations.
Withoutdocumentaryevidenceto supporttheclaim,theassertionsof counselwill notsatisfythepetitioner's
burdenof proof. Theunsupportedassertionsof counseldonotconstituteevidence.Matterof Obaigbena,19
I&N Dec.533,534(BIA 1988);MatterofLaureano,19I&N Dec.1(BIA 1983);MatterofRamirez-Sanchez,
17I&N Dec.503,506(BIA 1980).
Finally, counsel'sfrequentuseof malepronounswhenreferencingthe beneficiaryfurtherindicatesthe
questionablevalidityof his statements,asthebeneficiaryis a female.Whilethis singleanomalywouldnot
normally leadthe AAO to questionthe validity of counsel'sclaims,whenthis type of discrepancyis
consideredin light of thequestionableassertionsputforthby counselin hisbriefandin hisearlierresponses
to the director's RFEs, theAAO finds that this error servesas yet anotherindicator that counsel's statements
areunreliableandthat the intendedpurposeof suchstatementsis likely to provideinformationthat is so
generalthatit maybeappliedto avarietyof businesstypes.Wheretheprimaryobjectiveof U.S.Citizenship
andImmigrationServicesis to gaina meaningfulunderstandingof thescopeof thepetitioner'sbusinessand
thebeneficiary'sroletherein,counsel'sbroadstatements,whichdo not specificallyapplyto thepetitioning
entity,fail toachievethedesiredgoal.
In summary, the AAO fmds that the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed
abroador that shewould be employed in the United Statesin a managerialor executivecapacity and on the
basisof thesetwo findings this petition mustbe denied.
Additionally,whilenotpreviouslyaddressedin thedirector'sdecision,theAAO findsthatthepetitionerhas
alsofailedto establishthatit hasa qualifyingrelationshipwith thebeneficiary'semployerabroadpursuantto
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(3)(i)(C).To establisha "qualifyingrelationship"undertheAct andtheregulations,the
petitionermustshowthatthebeneficiary'sforeignemployerandtheproposedU.S.employerarethesame
employer(i.e.a U.S.entitywith a foreignoffice)orrelatedasa "parentandsubsidiary"oras"affiliates" See
generally§ 203(b)(1)(C)of the Act, 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C);seealso 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(2)(providing
definitionsof theterms"affiliate"and"subsidiary").
Theregulationat8C.F.R.§204.5(j)(2)statesin pertinentpart:
Affiliate means:
Page7
(A) Oneof two subsidiariesbothof whichareownedandcontrolledby thesameparentor
individual;
(B) Oneof two legalentitiesownedandcontrolledby thesamegroupof individuals,each
individualowningandcontrollingapproximatelythesameshareor proportionof each
entity;
* * *
Subsidiarymeansa firm,corporation,orotherlegalentityof whichaparentowns,directlyor
indirectly,morethanhalf of theentityandcontrolstheentity:or owns,directlyor indirectly,
half of theentityandcontrolstheentity;or owns,directlyor indirectly,50percentof a 50-50
joint ventureand has equal control and veto power over the entity; or owns, directly or
indirectly,lessthanhalfof theentity,butin factcontrolstheentity.
First,theAAO pointsout that thepetitionerfailedto reconcilethe inconsistencybetweenthepetitioner's
original claim-that the beneficiary'semployerabroadwas andcounsel'smorerecent
referenceto OmTradingasthebeneficiary'sforeignemployer.If wasin factthebeneficiary's
employerabroad,the burdenis on the petitionerto establishthat it haseithera parent-subsidiaryor an
affiliaterelationshipwith thatentity. However,ascounselfailedto addressthisinconsistencyonappeal,the
questionconcerningtheidentityof thebeneficiary'semployerabroadremainsunresolved.
Second,evenif theaboveinconsistencywereresolved,therecordshowsthatthepetitionerfailedto provide
evidenceshowingthat paid for its allegedownershipof the petitioner. Theregulations
specifically allow the director to requestadditional evidencein appropriatecases.See 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(j)(3)(ii). As ownershipis a critical elementof this visaclassification,thedirectormayreasonably
inquirebeyondthe issuanceof paperstockcertificatesinto the meansby which stockownershipwas
acquired. As previouslynoted,thedirectorrequestedevidenceof this naturein oneof the earlierRFEs.
instructingthepetitionerto providedocumentationof monies,property,or otherconsiderationfurnishedto
thepetitionerin exchangefor stockownership.In light of thepetitioner'sfailureto providethis previously
requestedevidence,the AAO finds that the petitionerhas failed to establishthe requisitequalifying
relationshipwith the beneficiary'sforeign employerand on the basisof this additionalfinding the instant
petition doesnot warrant approval.
An applicationor petitionthatfails to complywith thetechnicalrequirementsof thelaw maybedeniedby
theAAO evenif theServiceCenterdoesnotidentifyall of thegroundsfor denialin theinitial decision.See
SpencerEnterprises,Inc. v. UnitedStates,229F. Supp.2d 1025,1043(E.D.Cal.2001),affd, 345F.3d683
(9thCir. 2003);seealsoSoltanev. DOJ, 381F.3d 143,145(3dCir. 2004)(notingthattheAAO reviews
appealsonadenovobasis).Accordingly,basedontheadditionalgroundof ineligibilitydiscussedabove,this
petitioncannotbeapproved.
In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenof provingeligibility for thebenefitsoughtremainsentirelywith the
petitioner.Section291of theAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1361.Thepetitionerhasnotsustainedthatburden.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.