dismissed EB-1C Case: Finance

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: FEB 2 3 2012 
INRE: 
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. § 1153(b)(1)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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 I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
0Q@,_h 
PerryRhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.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 Texas corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its finance director. 
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)(l)(C), as a 
multinational executive or manager. 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to submit sufficient credible documentation to establish that: 
(1) a qualifying relationship exists between the petitioner and the beneficiary'S claimed foreign employer; 
(2) the beneficiary was employed by the claimed foreign entity during the requisite three-year time period; 
(3) the foreign entity was doing business abroad from 2004-2008; and (4) the u.s. entity continues to do 
business. The director also questioned the petitioner's submission of documents pertaining to MRA 
Enterprises, Inc., stating that the significance of these documents is unclear. 
The AAO notes that an explanation has been provided clarifying relationship to the 
petitioner. However, as ~ is not the petitioning entity in the present matter, any documents or information 
that do not pertain either to the beneficiary's U.S. employer or her alleged employer abroad are not pertinent 
to the matter at hand and need not be addressed in this proceeding. The AAO further notes that the petitioner 
has submitted sufficient evidence to address the director's concern regarding the petitioner's business activity 
beyond the year 2004. As such, the AAO concludes that the adverse finding in No.4 above can now be 
withdrawn. The remainder of the director's adverse findings will be fully addressed in the discussion below. 
On appeal, counsel submits an appellate brief in which she attempts to address and resolve some of the 
~ inconsistencies and deficiencies that were discussed in the director's decision. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(l) 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 I 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. 
Page 3 
A United States employer may file a petition on Form I-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 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 to be address in this proceeding is whether the petitioner submitted sufficient credible 
documentation to establish that it has a qualifying relationship with the entity that employed the beneficiary 
abroad. To establish a "qualifying relationship" under the Act and the regulations, the petitioner must show 
that the beneficiary's foreign employer and the proposed u.S. employer are the same employer (i.e. a U.S. 
entity with a foreign office) or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See generally 
§ 203(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 153(b)(1)(C); see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.50)(2) (providing definitions of 
the terms "affiliate" and "subsidiary"). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2) states in pertinent part: 
Affiliate means: 
(A) One of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled by the same parent or 
individual; 
(B) 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; 
* * * 
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. 
In a statement dated October 26, 2005, which the petitioner appended to the Form I-140, the petitioner stated 
that it is wholly owned by where the beneficiary'S 
alleged employment The petitioner included a copy of its 
which was filed on June 24, 2002 and which authorized the issue of no more than 100,000 shares of stock, 
and two copies of stock certificate no. 1 accompanied by a stock transfer certificate showing that all lOO,OOO 
shares of the petitioner's stock were transferred to the above named foreign entity on June 24,2002. 
On March 24, 2009, the director issued a notice of intent to deny (NOID) instructing the petitioner to provide 
further evidence to establish that the U.S. entity and the beneficiary'S foreign employer share common 
ownership and control. The director informed the petitioner that documentation that was submitted in support 
of a previously filed petition (with receipt no. which was filed on behalf of the 
beneficiary'S spouse, was contradictory and resulted in revocation of that petition based on a fmding of fraud. 
In response to the NOID, the petitioner resubmitted a copy of stock certificate no. 1 and the stock transfer 
certificate. In addition, the petitioner provided a detailed breakdown of the ownership of each of the 
-Page 4 
petitioner's alleged foreign affiliates. The list included the entity that was previously claimed as the 
beneficiary's foreign employer as well as the entity itself. . of the 
shown to include three individuals- owning 40% and 
beneficiary each owning 30% of the foreign entity. Ownership of the u.s. entity was. said t~ 
UREB. The petitioner also provided the original ........ 
to the . It is noted that both 
documents named only two owners for the foreign "'"T,nT __ owning six shares and 
owning four shares for a total of ten issued shares. 
On June 20, 2009, the director issued a notice denying the petitioner's Form 1-140 based, in part, on the 
conclusion that the record lacks sufficient credible documentation establishing that a qualifying relationship 
exists between the petitioning entity and _ the beneficiary's alleged employer abroad. The director 
referred to Form L-101-ACK (which pertains to a retail permit or license) in which the beneficiary's spouse 
attested to being owner of 1,000 shares of the petitioner's stock. The director determined that the information 
attested to by the beneficiary's spouse with regard to the petitioner's ownership is inconsistent with the claim 
that the petitioner has maintained all along, claiming that_ is the sole owner of the petitioning employer. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner objects to the 
communicating information to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and asserts that _ 
has no jurisdiction over immigration matters. Counsel also contends that USCIS had an obligation to disclose 
to the petitioner and its counsel any documents that were relied upon to reach an adverse conclusion regarding 
the petitioner's eligibility for the immigration benefit sought herein. 
Counsel's assertions, however, are unfounded and are not supported by any statute, regulation, or case law 
precedent. Contrary to counsel's assertion, USCIS is under no legal obligation to provide counselor the 
petitioner with copies of documents that are used to reach an adverse conclusion. In fact, counsel was made 
fully aware of the documents in question and the contents thereof and counsel was therefore free to approach 
either USCIS or th~ for photocopies of the same. Moreover, there was nothing preventing counsel 
from advising the petitioner as to the severity of the conflicting information and assisting the petitioner in 
resolving the inconsistency. 
In the present matter, rather than resolving the inconsistency, counsel introduced new facts, which the AAO 
deems insufficient in overcoming the director's adverse finding. Specifically, counsel asserts that during a 
meeting that was purportedly held on October 27,2005 the directors of "the United Group" resolved to issue 
1,000 shares to the beneficiary's spouse, in addition to the 100,000 shares that were purportedly already 
issued to _ thus indicating that the petitioner issued a total of 101,000 shares of stock. In support of this 
explanation, counsel refers to appeal exhibit no. 14, which consists of a photocopied extract from 
UH'~j::,,",U minutes of meeting showing that the to issue 1,000 shares to 
"as incentive for his role as However, in light of the fact 
attestation, which was found on Form L-101-ACK pertaining to retailer permits and 
licenses, was made on October 3,2003, the AAO finds both counsel's assertion and the corroborating minutes 
of meeting highly suspect and lacking in credibility. 
Additionally, there was no indication, either in the directors' resolution or in the record, to suggest that any 
amendments were made to the petitioner's original Articles of Incorporation, which, along with the 
petitioner's issued stock certificate, expressly show that the petitioner was authorized to issue a maximum of 
100,000 shares of stock. Therefore, in addition to the above discrepancies, the AAO further finds that 
counsel's assertion and the excerpt from the director's minutes of meeting are entirely inconsistent with the 
Articles of Incorporation. 
As previously stated in the director's decision, 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). Furthermore, doubt cast on any aspect of 
the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining 
evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Id. at 591. Therefore, while the submission of documents 
such as stock certificates, stock ledgers, or statements from company officers would, under ordinary 
circumstances, be sufficient to establish the elements of ownership and control, the circumstances in the 
present matter, where USCIS has pointed to documentation that contradicts the petitioner's original ownership 
claim, call for scrutiny of objective documentation, other than that which is internally generated by the 
petitioner or by the foreign entity that is claiming to be the petitioner's owner. 
In this matter, counsel's assertion of inconsistent claims and the petitioner's introduction of evidence that 
contradicts the originally submitted documentation give rise to serious questions concerning the validity of 
the petitioner's claims and the evidence submitted in support thereof. As such, the AAO finds that the 
petitioner has failed to provide adequate documentary evidence that would establish that the petitioner and the 
beneficiary's alleged foreign employer are commonly owned and controlled. On the basis of this initial 
finding the instant petition cannot be approved. 
The second issue to be addressed in this proceeding is the beneficiary'S employment abroad. Specifically, the 
AAO will examine the record to determine whether the beneficiary was employed abroad in accordance with 
the provisions specified at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B), which requires the petitioner to establish that the 
beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive position for at least one out of the 
three years prior to his entry to the United States as a nonimmigrant to work for the same employer. 
In the original October 26, 2005 support statement, the petitioner claimed that the beneficiary assumed the 
position of finance executive manager with _in 1999. The record shows that in support of the 
beneficiary'S claimed employment with_the petitioner submitted: (1) the foreign entity's organizational 
chart in which the beneficiary was identified as the finance executive manager, alongside one executive and 
two managerial positions, with a finance and accounts manager as her direct subordinate; and (2) a letter 
dated February 12, 2002 on the foreign entity's letterhead stating that the beneficiary was employed by the 
foreign entity as a fmance manager from September 1999 until November 2001. It is noted that, while the 
employment letter is signed, the name of the signing party appears only in signature form and the signature is 
illegible. While the words "authorized signatory" appear directly below the signature line, it is unclear who 
signed the employment letter or.whether that individual was indeed authorized to sign as indicated. 
In the director's March 24, 2009 NOID, the petitioner was informed that the record lacks evidence of the 
beneficiary'S employment abroad. The director further noted that the organizational chart that was submitted 
in connection with an immigrant petition (with receipt number did not include the 
beneficiary either in the claimed position of finance executive manager or in any other capacity. 
Page 6 
In response to the director's request, the petitioner provided a statement from counsel dated April 22, 2009 in 
which counsel explained that the beneficiary was employed abroad by two different affiliate entities-_ 
and finance manager of_ and as finance director of 
Counsel stated that nine separate companies comprise what he referred to as the 
companies. Counsel also strayed from the original claim-that the beneficiary was employed abroad by 
__ and instead asserted that the beneficiary "primarily worked" for_which is one of the co:mp1anles 
included in the With regard to the organizational chart submitted by in 
association with the immigrant petition filed on his behalf, counsel attempted to resolve the inconsistency that 
was pointed out by the director in the NOrD by stating that record contained an 
organizational chart that described the hierarchy of_ and since the beneficiary in the present matter was 
primarily employed by_according to counsel's revised claim, it was reasonable for the _ chart, 
which was found in record, to exclude the beneficiary. Counsel then referred to_ 
organizational chart, which was submitted with the NOrD response in an effort to establish that the 
beneficiary was employed abroad during the statutorily requisite time period. 
In the June 20, 2009 denial of the petition, the director indirectly rejected counsel's assertions, repeating the 
inconsistency between the petitioner's original claim regarding the beneficiary's overseas employment and 
the organizational chart submitted in regard to the immigrant petition that was filed on behalf of the 
beneficiary's husband. The director pointed out that the organizational chart that was originally submitted in 
support of the Form 1-140 regarding the beneficiary showed her as an employee of_ The director also 
pointed out that in the beneficiary'S Biographic Information Sheet, Form G-325A, which was previously 
submitted with the beneficiary's Application to Register or Adjust Status to Permanent Residence, Form 1-
485, and was signed by the beneficiary on November 30, 2004, the beneficiary answered "N/A" when 
requested to provide employment information going back five years from the date the Form G-325A was 
signed. 
On appeal, counsel again reasserts the pnor claim made in response to the NOrD, claiming that the 
beneficiary worked for both Counsel further claims that because the beneficiary held a 
directorial position she was not included in _ organizational chart even though she worked 
and continues to receive remuneration from the latter entity. With regard to the Form G-325A anomaly, 
counsel contends that, having allegedly held a directorial position, the beneficiary did not consider herself an 
employee and therefore assumed that the question regarding employment was not applicable to her particular 
set of circumstances. Counsel asks the AAO to review appellate exhibit no. 16, which consists of a sworn 
affidavit signed by the beneficiary where she restated counsel's explanation. 
After conducting a comprehensive review of the record, the AAO finds that counsel's explanations are not 
credible and lack probative value. 
First, as a preliminary concern, the AAO notes that precedent case law prohibits a petitioner from making 
material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See 
Matter ojlzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm. 1998). Accordingly, the AAO finds that the new 
information offered by counsel for the first time in the response to the director's NOrD is highly suspect, as it 
is entirely inconsistent with the petitioner's original claims and supporting documents. While counsel 
seemingly provides an explanation to establish the purpose for leaving the beneficiary'S name out of the 
_ organizational chart that was submitted in support of the Form 1-140 where the beneficiary's spouse 
was the beneficiary, he offers no explanation as to why the berieficiary's name was included in the _ 
Page 7 
organizational chart that was submitted in support of the instant Form 1-140 that has been filed on the 
beneficiary's behalf. If, as counsel now claims, the beneficiary was primarily employed by _ it is unclear 
why none of the original supporting documents made any mention of such employment and why the 
petitioner instead submitted an employment letter and an organizational chart both of which indicated that the 
beneficiary was claiming employment abroad under the auspices of_ 
Next, the AAO notes that neither counsel's explanation nor the affidavit that the beneficiary provided in 
support of the appeal is sufficient to overcome the considerable anomaly that the beneficiary created by 
indicating that she was not employed during the five-year period that preceded the date she signed her Form 
G-325A. It is clear, based on the originally submitted organizational chart and employment letter, that the 
beneficiary was claiming to be an employee of _ Whether this claim is credible is a separate issue 
altogether and must be explored, as in the present proceeding, by reviewing all of the documentation that has 
been submitted thus far. However, regardless of the credibility of the beneficiary'S employment claim, the 
fact remains that the evidence submitted initially in support of the petition strongly indicates that the 
petitioner's claimed eligibility hinged, at least in part, on its ability to establish that the beneficiary was an 
employee ofa foreign entity that shares ownership and control with the u.s. employer. 
The beneficiary'S claim that she did not provide any information regarding her foreign employment simply 
because she did not consider herself to be an employee due to her alleged directorial position within the 
foreign entity's hierarchy is neither reasonable nor credible, as all of the petitioner's original claims were 
based on the beneficiary having been employed b~with a managerial position title. Counsel's reliance 
on an unreasonable and unsupported claim that was newly raised on appeal seems both disingenuous and 
misleading and will not be accepted as fact. The unsupported statements of counsel on appeal or in a motion 
are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight. See INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 
188-89 n.6 (1984); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1980). Moreover, the record in the 
present matter indicates that USCIS has reason to believe that certain facts asserted in the petition are not true. 
As such, USCIS may reject those facts. Section 204(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(b); see also Anetekhai v. 
IN.S., 876 F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir.1989); Lu-Ann Bakery Shop. Inc. v. Nelson, 705 F. Supp. 7, 10 
(D.D.C.1988); Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7,15 (D.D.C. 2001). 
In light of the inconsistent and misleading documentation that has been submitted with regard to the 
beneficiary's employment abroad, the AAO finds that the petitioner has failed to meet the criteria specified at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5G)(3)(i)(B). On the basis of this second adverse finding the instant petition cannot be 
approved. 
Lastly, the AAO will address the third ground that served as a basis for denial- the petitioner's failure to 
establish that the foreign entity was doing business abroad from 2004-2008. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2) states that doing business means "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. " 
In the present matter, the NOill pointed out that the record lacks evidence of business conducted by UREB, 
including invoices, bills of sale, or product brochures of goods sold or produced by the company. The record 
further shows that in counsel's April 22, 2009 response statement in which he listed individually each item 
that was being submitted with the response, counsel provided Exhibit E, which contains documentation 
Page 8 
pertaining to the It is noted that Exhibit E consists of a single undated statement, which was 
signed by an authorized signatory whose signature is ·ble and thus does not identify the signing party. 
The letter refers to the "present status of all their stake holders" 
without specifying which documents pertain specifically to _ i.e., the entity that the petitioner originally 
claimed as the beneficiary's foreign employer. The letter also indicates that "details are given in Annexure­
I." However, none of the supporting exhibits that were submitted in response to the NOID were labeled 
"Annexure - I," thus precluding the AAO from being able to determine which documentation was specifically 
referenced. The AAO takes note of the purchase invoices, bills of property sales, project brochures, and 
property lease agreements that were submitted as part of Exhibits G, H, I, and J. All such documents named 
as 
as an active party to any of the invoices or contracts 
On appeal, counsel asserts that USCIS overlooked relevant documentation because it was "being too 
preoccupied with the _ involvement in this case." However, counsel's assertion is unfounded, as none 
of the previously submitted documents contained the information that the director requested in the NOID. 
Counsel's resubmission of evidence that was previously deemed insufficient does not overcome the director's 
adverse findings. Despite any common ownership _ may share with other companies that are considered 
to be part of the " the fact remains that each company under the group umbrella was separately 
established as an individual entity. As the petitioner originally claimed that the beneficiary's employment 
abroad was with the only business activity that is relevant to the matter at hand is that which was 
conducted by As previously noted, the altered claim that the beneficiary was "primarily" employed 
by_will not be considered in determining eligibility in the present matter. The only evidence and claims 
that will be considered concern the original claim. That being said, the petitioner has failed to provide 
evidence to show that _ continues to engage in the provision of goods and/or services. As such, the 
AAO cannot conclude that the foreign entity continues to do business abroad. On the basis of this third 
finding the instant petition cannot be approved. 
In light of the unfounded claims and documents created to support those claims, the AAO fmds that the 
petitioner knowingly submitted documents containing false statements in an effort to mislead USCIS and the 
AAO on an element material to the beneficiary's eligibility for a benefit sought under the immigration laws of 
the United States. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 1546. The AAO hereby enters a fmding of fraud. 
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. § 1361. The petitioner has not 
sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.