dismissed EB-1C Case: Food And Beverage Import/Export

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
'*aWhg data *m lo Services 
m- druly unwm 
'-~~~dnal wf- 
pmLIC COPY 
FILE: LIN 05 027 52865 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 0 1 7~ 
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)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 05 027 52865 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center. The 
petitioner filed an appeal seeking to overcome the director's findings. As the appeal was untimely filed, the 
director treated it as a motion to reopen, which he then dismissed. The matter is now before the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a Michigan corporation operating as an importer, exporter, distributor, and retailer of 
European food and beverages.' It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its chief executive officer. Accordingly, 
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. 3 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational 
executive or manager. The director denied the petition based on two independent grounds of ineligibility: 
1) the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or 
executive capacity; and 2) the beneficiary would not be employed in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity. The director subsequently reviewed the petitioner's submissions as part of a motion to 
reopen, which the director dismissed based on the determination that the new evidence provided by the 
petitioner on appeal failed to overcome either of the director's findings. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(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. 
011 appeal Troll1 tlic director's latcst dcci.;ioii. tlic pctitioncr pro\ idcs tlic idclitical iitatciiic~it :IS the oiic 
previously submitted on motion, asserting tliat the beneficiary's education and \vorl< experience establish tliat 
the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying capacity. However, when examining the executive or 
managerial capacity of the beneficiary, the MO will look first to the petitioner's description of the job duties. 
See 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5Cj)(5). The actual duties themselves reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin 
Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
With regard to the beneficiary's employment with the U.S. petitioner, the beneficiary focuses on his overall 
position with the company's hierarchy and his various business achievements thus far. However, the 
director's latest decision was based on the petitioner's failure to provide new facts or evidence establishing 
that the beneficiary's day-to-day duties would be within a managerial or executive capacity. Specifics are 
clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily executive or managerial in 
nature; otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. 
Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103. 
None of the information provided on appeal in the instant matter suggests that the submissions before the 
director at the time the motion was filed were sufficient to overcome either of the director's grounds for 
denying the petition. 
When the AAO denies a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a challenge only 
if it is shown that the AAO abused its discretion with respect to all of the AAO's enumerated grounds. See 
1 
 It should be noted that, according to the Michigan State corporate records, the petitioner's corporate status in Michigan 
has been automatically dissolved. Although the reason for this automatic dissolution is unclear, it raises the issue of the 
company's continued existence as a legal entity in the United States. 
LIN 05 027 52865 
Page 3 
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. $ 1361. The petitioner has not 
sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.