dismissed EB-1C Case: Food Service

;*tieing- deict@J 
vent clearly WW?~ 
inmi011 of g~fs~d PfiVsY 
PUBLlC COPY 
US. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: AuG 0 4 2010 
LIN 07 022 50001 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. 3 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
DANAHI CONTRERAS 
P.O. BOX 20050 
SAN JUAN, PR 00928 
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. 3 103.5. 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 $585. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
&f,Yi~inistrative Appeals office 
A99 873 059 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center. The 
petitioner subsequently filed an appeal, which was rejected as untimely filed per 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(I). However, per 8 C.F.R. fj 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(2), the director determined that the 
petitioner's submissions met the requirements of a motion and issued a new decision denying the petition. 
The petitioner subsequently filed another appeal, which was dismissed by the Administrative Appeals Office 
(AAO). The matter is now before the AAO on motion to reconsider. The AAO will dismiss the motion. 
The petitioner is a corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its comptroller general. 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. 5 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational 
executive or manager. The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish the existence of a 
qualifying relationship between itself and the beneficiary's foreign employer, Kentucky Pizza, C.A. 
(Venezuela), and denied the petition on that basis. 
The AAO dismissed the petitioner's subsequent appeal on December 9, 2009, concluding that the petitioner 
failed to support its claim that the U.S. and foreign entities have a qualifying relationship. In dismissing the 
petitioner's appeal, the AAO observed that the evidence of record contained inconsistent claims regarding 
whether the purported relationship between the two entities is a parent-subsidiary relationship or an affiliate 
relationship. More importantly, the AAO found that the minimal documentary evidence submitted to 
establish the ownership and control of each entity revealed that the two companies share no common 
ownership. According to the evidence, the petitioner is owned in the majority by while 
is owned in the majority by . The AAO found that the evidence 
clearly indicated that the two companies are not related through ownership. 
The petitioner filed the instant motion to reconsider on January 12, 2010. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion to reopen or reconsider an action by USCIS be filed within 30 days of 
the decision that the motion seeks to reopen or reconsider, except that failure to file before this period expires may 
be excused in the discretion of USCIS where it is demonstrated that the delay was reasonable and was beyond the 
control of the petitioner. If the decision was mailed, the motion must be filed within 33 days. See 8 C.F.R. 
103.5a(b). 
In accordance with 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(a)(7)(i), an application received in a USCIS office shall be stamped to 
show the time and date of actual receipt, if it is properly signed, executed and accompanied by the correct fee. 
For calculating the date of filing, the motion shall be regarded as properly filed on the date that it is so 
stamped by the service center. In the present matter, according to the date stamp on the Form I-290B, Notice 
of Appeal or Motion, the motion was received by the director on January 12, 2010, 34 days after the AAO's 
decision was issued. Counsel has offered no explanation for the petitioner's failure to file the motion within 
33 days of the AAO's adverse decision. 
Therefore, as a matter of discretion, the petitioner's failure to file the motion within the period allowed will not 
be excused as either reasonable or beyond the control of the petitioner. A motion that does not meet applicable 
requirements shall be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(4). Accordingly, the motion will be dismissed as untimely 
filed. 
A99 873 059 
Page 3 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. §103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C) requires that motions be "[alccompanied by a 
statement about whether or not the validity of the unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of any 
judicial proceeding." The petitioner's motion does not contain this statement and thus does not meet the 
applicable filing requirements and must be dismissed for this additional reason. 
The AAO notes that, even if the motion had been timely filed and otherwise met all applicable filing 
requirements, the AAO would not disturb its previous decision. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2) states: 
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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3) states: 
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 
application of law or [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (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. 
The AAO's review in this matter is limited to the narrow issue of whether the petitioner has presented and 
documented new facts or documented sufficient reasons, supported by pertinent precedent decisions, to 
warrant the re-opening or reconsideration of the AAO's decision issued on December 9,2009. 
The motion before the AAO is comprised of counsel's brief dated January 7, 2010; a letter from - 
certifying that the "main shareholders" of the petitioner and the beneficiary's foreign - - 
employer are - and his son"; correspondence between 1- 
om 2003 and 2004 regarding the petitioning entity's operations in copies of e-mail 
communications intended to show that controls both companies; and evidence that the 
beneficiary and are authorized signatories for the petitioner's bank account. 
Counsel for the petitioner has requested that her motion be treated as a motion to reconsider, but the motion is 
not supported by any precedent decisions, does not state the reasons for reconsideration, and does not 
specifically state how the AAO's decision was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. In 
the current proceeding, counsel has not even explicitly acknowledged the clearly stated grounds stated for 
dismissal of the appeal. 
As noted above, the AAO dismissed the appeal, in part, based on the petitioner's failure to resolve its 
inconsistent statements regarding the nature of the claimed corporate relationship between the U.S. company 
and the foreign entity, and specifically, whether such relationship is an affiliate relationship or a parent- 
subsidiary relationship. The motion contains no reference to these findings made in the AAO's decision. In 
fact, the present motion perpetuates these inconsistencies as it includes: (1) a claim made in counsel's brief . & 
that.the petitioner is a wholly-owned subsidiary of 2) a claim made in counsel's brief 
Page 4 
that - is the majority stock holder of both the petitioner and ; and (3) a 
"certification" from , - - and his son " are the "main shareholders" 
of both companies. 
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). While either an affiliate or a parent-subsidiary relationship constitutes a qualifying 
relationship in that both indicate the existence of common ownership and control, the fact that the petitioner 
continues to make inconsistent claims regarding its ownership gives the AAO further cause to question the 
reliability of either of the claims being presented. 
The primary reason the AAO dismissed the appeal was the petitioner's failure to establish through submission 
of documentary evidence that the U.S. and foreign entities share common ownership and control. 
S ecificall the AAO found that, based on the evidence submitted, the U.S. entity is majority owned by - 
m the foreign entity is owned by - and the two entities have no common 
shareholders. 
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)(l)(C) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(C); see also 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(j)(2) (providing definitions of the terms "affiliate" 
and "subsidiary"). In this matter, there was no evidence that a common individual or entity owns stock in 
both corporations, thereby creating an affiliate relationship. Nor was there any evidence that one of the two 
corporations owns a majority interest in the other, thereby creating a parent-subsidiary relationship. Instead 
the evidence clearly indicates that the two companies are not related through ownership. 
The AAO emphasized that the regulations 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. See 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5Q)(2); see also Matter of Church 
Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (BIA 1988); Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., 19 I&N 
Dec. 362 (BIA 1986); Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 (Comm. 1982). In the 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 International, 19 I&N Dec. at 595. 
The AAO further explained that, the petitioner must provide stock certificates, the corporate stock certificate 
ledger, stock certificate registry, corporate bylaws, and the minutes of relevant annual shareholder meetings to 
establish the total number of shares issued, the exact number issued to each shareholder, and the subsequent 
percentage ownership and its effect on corporate control. Additionally, a petitioning company must disclose 
all agreements relating to the voting of shares, the distribution of profit, the management and direction of the 
subsidiary, and any other factor affecting actual control of the entity. See Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, 
Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362. The AAO advised that, without full disclosure of all relevant documents, United 
A99 873 059 
Page 5 
States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is unable to determine the elements of ownership and 
control. 
Therefore, the only means by which the petitioner could overcome the AAO's adverse findings would be to 
submit updated documentary evidence of the ownership and control of both entities to establish that a 
qualifying relationship was in place at the time the petition was filed. The AAO's findings were based on 
evidence indicating the ownership of each company at the time they were incorporated, as this was the only 
documentary evidence of ownership and control in the record. We do not discount the possibility that the 
ownership of one or both companies may have changed over time. However, it is the petitioner's obligation to 
establish the ownership and control of each company through submission of relevant documentary evidence. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soflci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter 
of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
On motion, counsel makes no direct reference to or rebuttal to the AAO's findings regarding the ownership of 
each company and the resulting evidence of ineligibility present in the record. Instead, counsel states that the 
petitioner is whollv-owned bv the foreign entitv. states that the vetitioner and the foreign entitv are maioritv- 
mainly owned by the beneficiary and his son, but does not submit documentary evidence to support any one 
of these inconsistent claims. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel 
will not satis@ 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 AAO notes that the evidence submitted on motion is intended to demonstrate that is 
the president of both entities, and to establish that both companies share common control. The AAO does not 
doubt that the two companies have a business relati 
responsibilities for both entities. In fact, the petitioner's 
Inc." dated October 29, 2001, indicates that the company's directors resolved to negotiate a 
under which the latter would perform 
various functions for the petitioner such as marketing, accounts payable and receivable, other accounting 
services, and human resources functions. The record also establishes that both companies have franchise and 
licensing agreements with nternational organization and that recognizes 1 
as the manager of both entities. However, as discussed in our previous decision, none of these 
contractual agreements are sufficient to establish that the U.S. and foreign entities share the requisite common 
ownership which is absolutely essential to a finding that a qualifying relationship exists. 
The petitioner has been provided ample opportunities to provide documentary evidence of the ownership and 
control of both companies in the form of stock certificates and other relevant corporate documentation, as this 
specific deficiency was discussed in both the director's decision dated April 20,2009 and the AAO's appellate 
decision. The non-existence or other unavailability of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 
8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(2)(i). 
A99 873 059 
Page 6 
Motions for the reopening or reconsideration of immigration proceedings are disfavored for the same reasons as 
petitions for rehearing and motions for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. See INS v. Doherty, 
502 U.S. 3 14, 323 (1992)(citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988)). A party seeking to reopen a proceeding 
bears a "heavy burden." lTNS V. Abudu, 485 U.S. at 110. With the current motion, the movant has not met that 
burden. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the motion will be dismissed, the proceedings will not 
be reopened or reconsidered, and the previous decisions of the director and the AAO will not be disturbed. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.