dismissed EB-1C Case: Farming Consulting

(b)(6)
DATE: MAR 0 9 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._ Citizensb1;p 
and Iillmigration 
Services · · 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant 
t<? Section 203(bXl)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OFPETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please fmd 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 concemi~g 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 re_consider or a motion to reopen 
with the field office or service center that originally decide_d your case by filing a 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 diredly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C .F.R. § 
l03.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to 
reconsider or reopen. 
Thank yol.J, 
. ·" 
9 "'-' • ...... 
i:R~~~ 
··Acting Chief, Administra~ive Appeals Office 
~.usc~s.gov 
(b)(6)Page2 
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 summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner is. engaged in farming consulting, and it seeks. to employ the beneficiary as its 
Chief Executive .Officer. Accord~gly, 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. 
On November 21, 2011, the director denied the petition concluding the petitioner failed to 
establish that it would employ the beneficiary in a 
managerial or executive capacity. 
On December 14, 2011, counsel for the petitioner submitted the Form 1-2908 to appeal the 
director's denial. Counsel marked the box at part two of the Form 1-2908 to indicate that a brief 
and/or additional evidence will be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. The AAO never 
received the brief and/or additional evidence in support of the appeal. Thus, the AAO deems the 
record complete as currently constituted and ready for adjudication. 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party 
concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for 
the appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v). 
In regards to the director's conclusion that the petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence to 
show the beneficiary's eligibility for the immigrant petition, counsel for the petitioner fails to 
identify erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. The petitioner failed to 
provide any additional to overcome the director's concerns. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter ofSofjici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure 
Craft of California, 14 I&NDec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)). 
On the Form 1-2908, the petitioner the petitioner noted that USCIS approved an L-1A visa that 
· had been previously filed on behalf of the beneficiary. The AAO acknowledges that.USCIS has 
previously approved an L-1 A petition filed by the petitioner on behalf of the instant beneficiary. 
It must be noted that many 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior 
nonimmigrant 1-129 L-1 petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 
(D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22; Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103. Examining the consequences of an approved petition, there is a 
significant difference between a nonimmigrant L-1 A visa classification, which allows an alien to 
enter the United States temporarily, and an immigrant E-13 visa petition, which permits an alien 
to apply for permanent residence in the United States and, if granted, ultimately apply for 
naturalization as a United States citizen. Cf. §§ 204 and 214 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1154 and 
1184; see also§ 316 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1427. Because USCIS spends less time reviewing 1-
129 nonimmigrant petitions than 1-140 immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrant L-1A petitions 
are simply approved in error. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see also 
(b)(6)
.... I • 
Page3 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(i) (requiring no supporting documentation to file a petition to extend an 
L-lA petition's validity). 
Despite · the previously approved petition, USCIS does not have any authority to confer an 
immigration benefit when the petitioner fails to ·meet its burden of proof in a subsequent 
petition. See section 291 of the Act. Each petition filing is a separate· proce'eding with a separate 
record. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.8(d). In making a determination of statutory eligibility, USCIS is 
. limited to the information contained in that individual record of proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b)(16)(ii). Based on the lack ofrequired evidence of eligibility in the current record, the 
AAO fmds that the director was justified in departing from the previous nonimmigrant petition 
approval by denying the instant petition. · 
As noted by counsel, a company's size alone, without taking into account the reaso·nable needs of 
the organization, may not be the determining factor in denying a visa to a multinational manager 
·or executive. Section 10l(a)(44)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(C). Instead, an 
executive's duties must be the critical factor. However' based on the current record, the AAO is 
unable to determine whether the claimed managerial du~ies constitute the majority of the 
beneficiary's duties, or ':"hether the beneficiary primarily performs non-managerial 
administrative or operational duties. The petitioner's description of the beneficiary's job duties 
does not establish what proportion of the beneficiary's duties is managerial in nature, and what 
proportion is actually non-managerial. See Republic ofTranskei V. INS, 923 F.2d 175, 177 (D.C. 
Cir. 1991). · · 
As no additional evidence is presented on appeal to overcome the decision of the director, the 
appeal will be summarily dismissed in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
The burden of proof in these.proceedings rests solely With the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, · 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed. The petition will be denied.