dismissed EB-1C Case: Corporate Management

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
pUBLIC copy 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: 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 
Date: MAR 0 4 2011 
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)(I)(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 law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must 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.usc\s.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center. The 
petitioner appealed the matter to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The appeal was summarily 
dismissed. The matter is now before the AAO on motion to reopen and reconsider. The motion will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner is a New York corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its president. Accordingly, 
the petitioner endeavors to classifY the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C), as a multinational 
executive or manager. The director denied the petition based on the 'determination that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner appealed the denial disputing the director's findings. The AAO dismissed the appeal, 
affirming the director's adverse finding with regard to the beneficiary'S employment capacity in the proposed 
position with the U.S. entity. The AAO also found, beyond the decision of the director, that the petitioner 
submitted conflicting information regarding its ownership and therefore failed to establish that it has a 
qualifYing relationship with a foreign entity. 
On motion, the petitioner submits a copy of the petitioner's 2007 tax return. Although not expressly stated, 
the AAO will assume that the tax return was submitted for the purpose of establishing that the petitioner was 
a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Chinese parent entity during the year in which the Form 1-140 was filed. 
The AAO further notes that the petitioner does not dispute the summary dismissal of the appeal on the basis 
of the original ground for denial, i.e., the petitioner's failure to establish that the beneficiary would be 
employed in the United States within a qualifYing managerial or executive capacity. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) state, in pertinent part, that a motion to reopen must state the new 
facts to be provided in the reopened proceeding and be supported by affidavits or other documentary 
evidence. 
In the instant matter, while the petitioner's 2007 tax return clearly addresses the additional adverse finding the 
AAO issued in its July 28, 2009 decision, the validity and reliability of this document is questionable at best 
due mainly to the fact that the copy submitted was neither certified nor signed by an officer of the filing 
organization, i.e., the petitioner. Furthermore, the AAO notes that the 2007 tax return does not resolve the 
inconsistencies that were created by the petitioner's 2004, 2005, and 2006 tax returns, none of which showed 
the petitioner as being owned by the foreign parent entity, despite information conveyed in the petitioner's 
stock certificate no. 1, which showed the foreign parent entity as the sole owner of the petitioner's outstanding 
issued stock. 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). As the petitioner's 2007 tax return is deficient and does not address the 
inconsistencies created by the earlier tax returns, the petitioner has not overcome the additional ground for 
denial that was cited in the AAO's prior decision. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) state, in pertinent part: 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any 
pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect 
Page 3 
application of law or USCIS policy. A motion to reconsider a decision on an application or 
petition must, when filed, also establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence 
of record at the time of the initial decision. 
In the instant case, the petitioner does not cite any legal precedent or applicable law that would indicate an 
error on the part of the AAO in dismissing the petitioner's appeal. Therefore, the motion will be dismissed in 
accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(4), which states, in pertinent part, that a motion that does not meet 
applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 
As a final note, the proper filing of a motion to reopen and/or reconsider does not stay the AAO's prior 
decision to dismiss an appeal or extend a beneficiary'S previously set departure date. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.S(a)(1)(iv). 
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. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.