dismissed EB-1C Case: Diamond And Gemstone Import/Export

identifying data deleted to 
prsvent claly unwarrant,ed 
invasion of personal privac~ 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Departmerit of Homeland Secl~rity 
20 Mass Ave N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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. €j 1153(b)(l)(C) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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 further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to 
have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 
9 103.5 for the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided 
your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
ministrative Appeals Office 
Pd '' 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: 
 The employment based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner was incorporated in the State of New York in 2005 and claims to be engaged in 
the import and export of diamonds and gemstones. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its 
presidentlchief executive officer pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
The petitioner claims to be the subsidiary of, located in Mumbai, India. 
The director denied the petition, determining that (1) a qualifying relationship did not exist 
between the petitioner and a foreign entity; (2) the petitioner had not been doing business for the 
previous year as required; (3) the beneficiary was not employed abroad in a primarily managerial 
or executive capacity; and (4) the beneficiary will not be employed in a primarily managerial or 
executive capacity in the United States. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence. 
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. 
A United States employer may file a petition on Form 1-140 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 to be 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. 
The first issue in this matter is whether a qualifying relationship exists between the petitioner and 
a foreign entity. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.50)(3)(C) provides: 
The prospective employer in the United States is the same employer or a 
subsidiary or affiliate of the firm or corporation or other legal entity by which the 
alien was employed overseas. 
Additionally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.50)(2) provides: 
(I) "Parent" means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity which has subsidiaries. 
(J) "Branch" means an operating division or office of the same organization housed 
in a different location. 
(IS) "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. 
(L) "Affiliate" means 
(I) One of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled by the same 
parent or individual, or 
(2) 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, or 
(3) In the case of a partnership that is organized in the United States to provide 
accounting services along with managerial andlor consulting services and that 
markets its accounting services under an internationally recognized name under 
an agreement with a worldwide coordinating organization that is owned and 
controlled by the member accounting firms, a partnership (or similar 
organization) that is organized outside the United States to provide accounting 
services shall be considered to be an affiliate of the United States partnership if it 
markets its accounting services under the same internationally recognized name 
Page 4 
under the agreement with the worldwide coordinating organization of which the 
United States partnership is also a member. 
In this case. the vetitioner claimed that the U.S. entity is the whollv-owned subsidiarv of the 
foreign colporatidn, - With thedinitial *etition; the petitioner sudmitted a 
share certificate dated June 20, 2005 indicating that the foreign entity owns 200 shares in the 
petitioner. 
The record also contained copies of the petitioner's Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax 
Return, for the years 2005 and 2006. On Schedule K of each document, the petitioner listed the 
beneficiary as the sole owner of the company. 
On July 15, 2007, the director issued a request for additional evidence. The director noted the 
discrepancies in ownership, and requested definitive documentation to establish that the 
petitioner and the Indian company maintained a qualifying relationship. Specifically, the 
director requested evidence including but not limited to the petitioner's stock ledger, copies of 
corporate bylaws and/or constitutions which clearly indicated the breakdown of stock ownership, 
and copies of annual reports showing any affiliates or subsidiaries and their ownership interests. 
In a letter dated September 5, 2007, the petitioner briefly addressed this issue. Specifically, the 
petitioner claimed that I was the petitioner's sole owner by virtue of its 
ownership of 200 shares of stock. In support of this contention, the petitioner resubmitted the 
stock certificate dated June 20,2005. 
Upon review of the evidence submitted, the director concluded that the petitioner had not 
established the requisite relationship with the foreign entity. Specifically, the director noted the 
discrepancy between the ownership claimed on the tax returns versus the ownership indicated by 
the stock certificate, and found that the petitioner had failed to clarify these inconsistencies with 
documentary evidence. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner reasserts the claim that the foreign 
entity is the sole owner, relying once again solely on the stock certificate dated June 20, 2005. 
The regulation and case law confirm that ownership and control are the factors that must be 
examined in determining whether a qualifying relationship exists between United States and 
foreign entities for purposes of this visa classification. Matter of Church Scientology 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., 
19 I&N Dec. 362 (BIA 1986); Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 (Comm. 1982). In context of 
this visa petition, ownership refers to the direct or indirect legal right of possession of the assets 
of an entity with full power and authority to control; control means the direct or indirect legal 
right and authority to direct the establishment, management, and operations of an entity. Matter 
of Church Scientology, 19 I&N Dec. at 595. 
Upon review of the record of proceeding, the AAO concurs that the petitioner has not established 
that it has the required qualifying relationship with the Indian entity. 
Page 5 
In this case, the petitioner initially provided two types of conflicting evidence: a share certificate 
indicating that Padmavati Gems (India) is the sole owner of the petitioner, and tax returns 
indicating that instead, the beneficiary owns the company. 
Despite the director's request for additional evidence to rectify this discrepancy, the petitioner 
failed and/or refused to submit such evidence. On appeal, counsel simply states, once again, that 
the foreign entity is the owner of the petitioner, and submits the stock certificate again for 
reference. However, without additional 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-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 
506 (BIA 1980). 
The stock certificate alone, without additional documentation such as minutes from shareholder 
meetings or the stock ledger, is insufficient to definitively establish that the foreign entity is the 
sole owner of the petitioner. There is no documentation, such as the petitioner's articles of 
incorporation, which verify the number of shares authorized. Merely submitting one stock 
certificate, without providing confirmation that this certificate represents all outstanding shares 
authorized by the petitioner, will not satisfy the burden of proof in these proceedings. The lack 
of additional evidence is particularly crucial in this matter since the claimed owner of the 
petitioner, according to its corporate tax returns, is the beneficiary, not Padvamati Gems (India). 
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). 
The AAO has also examined the corporate documentation pertaining to the foreign entity to see 
if an affiliate relationship exists between the entities. However, there is no evidence to support 
such a finding. The foreign entity's deed of partnership, dated April 1, 2004, list four equal 
shareholders, none of whom are the beneficiary. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that 
an affiliate relationship exists between the parties. 
Upon review of the record of proceeding, the AAO concurs with the director's finding that a 
qualifying relationship does not exist between the U.S. and the Indian entity. For this reason, the 
petition will be denied. 
The second issue in this matter is whether the petitioner has been doing business as required by 
the regulations for the previous year. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. §204.5Cj)(2) defines the term 
"doing business" as "the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or services by 
a firm, corporation, or other entity and does not include the mere presence of an agent or office." 
Moreover, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(j)(3)(i)(D) provides that a petition should include 
evidence that: 
Page 6 
The prospective employer in the United States has been doing business for at least 
one year. 
In this matter, the petitioner claims that it is engaged in the import and export of diamonds and 
gemstones. The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner had failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirements for doing business. 
The petition in this matter was filed on July 10, 2006. Therefore, according to the regulations, 
the petitioner was required to submit evidence that it had been doing business as contemplated 
by the regulations from July 10, 2005 to July 10, 2006. The petitioner submitted numerous 
invoices, as well as its Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, for the tax year June 7, 
2005 to May 31, 2006, demonstrating gross receiptdsales in the amount of $2,122,701. The 
director, however, concluded that the petitioner had submitted no evidence that it had been doing 
business as of July 10, 2005, noting that its bank account was not opened until July 21, 2005. 
Specifically, the director noted that other than a $2,000 start-up expense dated June 5, 2005 
which was included on its tax return, no other evidence indicated that the petitioner had 
commenced doing business by July 10,2005. 
On appeal, counsel contends that the petitioner was engaged in business since 2005, and claims 
that the early stages included time devoted to research, advertising, and the acquisition of clients. 
No evidence in support of these contentions was submitted. 
On review of the evidence submitted, the AAO concludes that the petitioner failed to 
demonstrate that it had been doing business for the entire year prior to the filing of the petition. 
The record indisputably indicates that the petitioner has enjoyed rapid growth since commencing 
operations. However, as noted by the director, the record contains no evidence pertaining to the 
business dealings of the petitioner from July 10, 2005 to August 17, 2005, the date of the first 
invoice included in the record evidencing the petitioner's business dealings. While the AAO 
notes that a $2,000 start up expense is dated June 5,2005 on the petitioner's tax return, this alone 
is insufficient to establish that the petitioner was doing business for the entire year prior to the 
petition's filing. According to the petitioner's Form NYS-45-MN, Quarterly Combined 
Withholding, Wage Reporting and Unemployment Insurance Return for the third quarter of 
2005, the company did not pay wages to any employees until September 2005, which further 
supports a conclusion that the company had not been doing business for the entire year prior to 
the filing of the petition. 
The petitioner failed to establish that it was doing business for an entire year prior to the 
petition's filing. For this additional reason, the petition may not be approved. 
The third and fourth issues in this matter; namely, whether the petitioner has established that the 
beneficiary was employed abroad and will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity for 
the United States entity, are closely related in terms of analysis. 
Page 7 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 101(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. 5 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 
(iv) 
 receives only general supervision or direction from higher level 
executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the 
organization. 
The AAO will first address the beneficiary's employment abroad. 
In a letter of support dated June 28, 2006, the petitioner claimed that the beneficiary was 
employed by the foreign entity since 2001, and was promoted to the position of manager in June 
2004. The petitioner further claimed that he held this position until he went to the United States. 
Regarding his duties, the petitioner stated: 
As Manager, Beneficiary was responsible for executive oversight of [the foreign 
entity's] goals and policies respecting uniform sales, marketing and financial 
standards in its services, as well as accounting. He was also responsible for 
oversight of each of these areas with respect to conformance with the budget and 
all financial aspects of the sales and marketing activities. He exercised wide 
latitude of discretionary decision-making, had authority to hire and fire employees 
and to make all major sales/marketing and financial decisions. He was not 
involved himself in the day-to-day duties of the business. Day-to-day 
management of the business was overseen by the Sales and Marketing and 
Advertising Managers who reported directly to him. 
The petitioner also claimed that the beneficiary "supervised 4-5 employees, and monitored the 
work product of independent contractors." Although the petitioner indicated that an 
organizational chart demonstrating the beneficiary's position in the foreign entity was submitted, 
no such document was identified. 
In the request for evidence dated July 15, 2007, the director requested additional information 
pertaining to the beneficiary's duties abroad, as well as the percentage of time he devoted to 
these duties. Additionally, the director specifically requested an organizational chart to show the 
beneficiary's position in the organizational hierarchy. 
In a response dated September 5, 2007, the petitioner provided a more detailed overview of the 
beneficiary's duties abroad, as well as a breakdown of the percentage of time devoted to each 
task area. In relevant part, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary's responsibilities abroad were 
as follows: 
1) 
 Direct the overall operations of the business with an emphasis on sales and 
marketing (28% of individual task) 
2) 
 Develop, plan, and implement long term goals and plans, establish and 
oversee policies and strategies with respect to promotion, marketing and 
economic growth (23% of individual task) 
3) Coordinate, interview, train and manage support staff in sales and 
marketing (20% of individual task) 
4) Assign duties and responsibilities to subordinate managers (17% of 
individual task) 
5) Review customer relations and establish business connections (12% of 
individual task) 
Page 9 
On January 16, 2008, the director denied the petition. The director noted that it did not appear 
that the beneficiary had been engaged primarily in managerial or executive tasks, and instead 
appeared to have been engaged in performing the marketing functions of the company. The 
director also noted that the claimed organizational hierarchy of the petitioner, with only four to 
five subordinates, did not support a finding that the beneficiary would be employed in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner resubmits the percentage breakdown and description of 
duties included in the response for the request for evidence, and relies upon these 
previously-submitted statements in support of the contention that the beneficiary was in fact 
employed abroad in a managerial and/or executive capacity. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's findings. When examining the executive or 
managerial capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look first to the petitioner's description of 
the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(~)(5). The petitioner must clearly describe the duties to be 
performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are either in an executive or 
managerial capacity pursuant to the definitions at section 101 (a)(44) of the Act. At a minimum, 
the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary's responsibilities meet the requirements of one 
or the other statutory definitions. 
The definitions of executive and managerial capacity each have two parts. First, the petitioner 
must show that the beneficiary performs the high-level responsibilities that are specified in the 
definitions. Second, the petitioner must prove that the beneficiary primarily perfornls these 
specified responsibilities and does not spend a majority of his or her time on day-to-day 
functions. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (Table), 1991 WL 144470 (9th Cir. July 
30, 1991). 
Although the petitioner provided a detailed list of the beneficiary's duties with the petition, this 
list is nondescript and appears to focus primarily on market research and analysis. Based upon 
the evidence submitted, it cannot be determined that the beneficiary would be primarily engaged 
in qualifying managerial and executive duties. Specifically, in both the initial letter of support 
and in the response to the request for evidence, the petitioner emphasizes that the beneficiary will 
engage in marketing-related tasks, such as training support staff in sales and marketing, directing 
the overall operations of the company with an emphasis in sales and marketing, establishing 
business connections, overseeing price negotiation, purchasing inventory and supplies, 
conducting market analysis, and determining inventory, cost, and pricing policies. 
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 lOl(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 Int 'I., 19 
I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm. 1988). The above duties are integral to the expansion and continued 
prosperity of a company. However, a number of the duties identified, such as purchasing 
inventory and conducting market analysis, are not considered traditional managerial or executive 
tasks. Since there is no evidence in the record to demonstrate that the beneficiary oversees a 
subordinate staff to perform such non-qualifying but integral duties, the AAO is unable to 
conclude that the beneficiary was primarily engaged in high-level responsibilities as opposed to 
lower-level tasks. 
Moreover, despite the obvious emphasis on marketing activities, the overall descriptions of 
duties for the beneficiary are generic and seems to merely paraphrase the regulatory definitions. 
Statements such as "direct the overall operations of the business," "develop, plan and implement 
long term goals and plans," and [exercise] wide latitude in discretionary decision-making" 
provide no insight regarding the true nature of the beneficiary's duties. Reciting the beneficiary's 
vague job responsibilities or broadly-cast business objectives is not sufficient; the regulations 
require a detailed description of the beneficiary's daily job duties. The petitioner has failed to 
answer a critical question in this case: What does the beneficiary primarily do on a daily basis? 
The actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. 
v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1103,1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), afd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Finally, the petitioner's failure to submit an organizational chart specifically outlining the 
organizational hierarchy of the foreign company and the beneficiary's role therein renders it 
impossible to conclude that he was employed primarily in a qualifying capacity and relieved 
from performing day-to-day tasks associated with the sales and marketing functions of the 
foreign entity, as claimed in the initial letter of support dated June 28, 2006. 
The organizational structure of the foreign entity has not been clearly outlined. Although several 
organizational charts are contained in the record, the petitioner has failed to specifically annotate 
a chart with information that specifically identifies the hierarchy of the foreign entity. In fact, 
most employees identified on these charts match the names of the employees listed on the U.S. 
entity's quarterly tax returns. Therefore, based on the record, the AAO is unable to ascertain 
where the beneficiary ranked in the foreign entity's organizational structure or whether or not he 
supervised a subordinate staff who in turn would relieve him form performing such non- 
qualifying duties as purchasing and various import/export functions. Failure to submit requested 
evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 9 
103.2(b)(14). 
The petitioner's failure to provide additional evidence pertaining to the position and duties of the 
beneficiary within the organizational hierarchy renders it impossible to determine that he was 
employed in a qualifying capacity. Although counsel contends again on appeal that the 
statements provided clearly establish that the beneficiary was employed in a qualifying capacity, 
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-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
Based on the foregoing discussion, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary was 
employed abroad in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. For this additional reason, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
The last issue on appeal is whether the beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity. Although the issue was only touched upon briefly 
by the director and not addressed by counsel on appeal, the AAO has thoroughly reviewed the 
evidence of record and will uphold the director's ultimate conclusion. 
On Form 1-140, filed on April 23, 2007, the petitioner indicated that the beneficiary would be 
employed as its president and chief executive officer. In its June 28, 2006 letter of support, the 
petitioner provided a detailed list of the beneficiary's proposed duties, many of which mirrored 
the duties the petitioner claimed he performed abroad. In addition to the general marketing tasks 
and the paraphrasing of the regulatory definitions, the petitioner also claimed that the beneficiary 
would oversee a vice-president, two to three marketing specialists, an administrative assistant, 
and a finance controller. An accompanying organizational chart indicated that the beneficiary 
currently oversaw an administrative assistant (not named) and a "manager," - 
who in turn oversaw three marketing specialists: , and 
, The petitioner's most recent Form 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax 
Return, verified that all of these staff members were employed at the time of filing. 
In the request for evidence, the director requested greater detail with regard to the beneficiary's 
duties. In the response dated September 5, 2007, the petitioner provided a breakdown of the 
percentage of time the beneficiary would devote to his duties, and indicated that the majority of 
his time would be devoted to: "researching the import and distribution of fine jewelry market in 
order to develop marketing and sales strategies on a short and long-term basis for the business 
expansion (24%),"; "formulating the company's long-and short-term goals (12%)"; and "meeting 
with marketing staff in order to coordinate the findings of market research and instruct 
[rlepresentives regarding preferred course of action (12%)." 
The director denied the petition on the basis that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. The 
director does not clearly state the basis for denial on this issue. When denying a petition, a director 
has an affirmative duty to explain the specific reasons for the denial; this duty includes informing a 
petitioner why the evidence failed to satisfy its burden of proof pursuant to section 291 of the Act, 8. 
U.S.C. § 1361. See 8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(a)(l)(i). The director's omission is harmless, however, because the 
AAO conducts a de novo review, evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence in the record according to its 
probative value and credibility as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 245a.2(d)(6). The AAO maintains 
plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 557(b) ("On appeal f'rom or review of 
the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in making the initial decision 
except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also, Janka v. US. Dept. of Tramp., NTSB, 
925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority has been long recognized by the 
federal courts. See, e.g. Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
As previously stated, the AAO agrees with the director's conclusions. 
As discussed above, it appears that the beneficiary will be primarily engaged in performing the 
marketing functions of the company. Specifically, the AAO notes that the organizational 
structure of the petitioner is confusing and somewhat inconsistent. For example, the petitioner 
claimed in the initial letter of support and on the original organizational chart provided that the 
beneficiary in the United States, would oversee a manager and three "marketing specialists." In 
response to the request for evidence, however, the petitioner claims that the beneficiary will 
oversee only one marketing specialist. Although the chart submitted in response to the request 
for evidence still indicates that the petitioner has four employees working under the beneficiary, 
their titles now include "finance controller," "administrative assistant," and "sales and 
merchandise manager." 
The purpose of the request for evidence is to elicit further information that clarifies whether 
eligibility for the benefit sought has been established. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). When responding 
to a request for evidence, a petitioner cannot offer a new position, or materially change a 
position's title, its level of authority within the organizational hierarchy, or its associated job 
responsibilities. The petitioner must establish that the position offered to the beneficiary when 
the petition was filed merits classification as a managerial or executive position. Matter of 
Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg. Comm. 1978). If significant changes are made 
to the initial request for approval, the petitioner must file a new petition rather than seek approval 
of a petition that is not supported by the facts in the record. The information provided by the 
petitioner in its response to the director's request for further evidence did not clarify or provide 
more specificity to the original organizational structure of the petitioning entity, but rather 
materially altered the titles and job responsibilities of the beneficiary's alleged subordinates. 
Therefore, the analysis of this criterion will be based on the job description submitted with the 
initial petition. 
Again the beneficiary's duties in the United States are not specific, and generalize the tasks 
found in the regulatory definitions. In addition, the petitioner and counsel merely conclude that 
the beneficiary is employed in a qualifying capacity, seemingly by virtue of his title. Conclusory 
assertions regarding the beneficiary's employment capacity are not sufficient. Merely repeating 
the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin 
Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), afd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 
1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y .). 
Most importantly, a critical analysis of the nature of the petitioner's business undermines the 
assertions that subordinate employees relieve the beneficiary from performing non-qualifying 
duties. Rather, it appears from the record that the employees of the petitioner all perform 
marketing-related functions. The administrative position is unfilled, and there are no sales 
representatives. There are no employees delegated to perform key marketing-related tasks, such 
as purchasing and logistics. Ironically, the petitioner earned over $2 million in gross sales in the 
first year of operations, with no sales representatives or administrative or clerical staff. It can 
only be assumed, and has not been proven otherwise, that the beneficiary is performing all sales 
functions as well as marketing functions and perhaps clerical and administrative functions. 
Based on the record of proceeding, the beneficiary's job duties are principally composed of non- 
qualifying duties that preclude him from functioning in a primarily managerial or executive role. 
An employee who primarily performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide 
services is not considered to be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. See sections 
10 1 (a)(44)(A) and (B) f the Act; see also Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N 
Dec. 593,604 (Comm. 1988). 
When the AAO denies a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a 
challenge only if he or she shows that the AAO abused its discretion with respect to all of the 
AAO's enumerated grounds. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 
1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afyd. 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003). 
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. tj 1361. 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
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. tj 1361. Here, that burden has not 
been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.