dismissed EB-1C Case: Furniture Business

U.S. Departnlent of IIomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
PUBL~C 
 U. and S. Citizenship Immigration 
WiGng dahP ddeted to 
pmvat ddp. unwarranted 
~~iocl of personal privacy 
office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: JUN 0 4 2iB? 
- - 
EAC 05 178 52933 
IN RE: Petitloner: 
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. 9 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
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. 
- - .- 
A -,-----+ 
~obertF ~lernann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant petition. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (MO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a corporation organized in the State of New York in December 2002. It operates a furniture 
business. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as its vice president. 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. 9 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or 
manager. 
The director denied the petition on July 17, 2006. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established that the beneficiary would be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity for the 
United States company. 
Counsel for the petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion 
and forwarded the appeal to the MO for review. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director failed to 
take into consideration the beneficiary's supervision of management teams employed by the petitioner's 
claimed parent company in China. The petitioner asserts that the beneficiary is employed at a senior level 
within the company and manages a subordinate staff of professional, managerial and supervisory personnel 
who relieve him from performing non-qualifying duties. The petitioner submits a letter and additional 
evidence in support of the appeal. 
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 the firm, corporation or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary of that 
entity, and 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 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 that 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. See 8 C.F.R. 
9 204.56)(5). 
The sole issue addressed by the director is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the United States entity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" as an 
assignment with 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. 9 1101(a)(44)(B), defines the term "executive capacity" as 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 fiom higher level executives, the board 
of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
Page 4 
The immigrant petition was filed on June 2, 2005. The petitioner stated on Form 1-140 that the beneficiary 
would be employed as the vice president of the ten-person company. The petitioner submitted a supporting 
letter dated May 25, 2005, in which it stated that the beneficiary had negotiated the purchase of 50 percent of 
the shares of the petitioning entity by his previous foreign employer and its U.S. subsidiary in 2005, resulting 
in his appointment to the position of vice president and chief operation officer of the U.S. company. The 
petitioner did not further discuss the beneficiary's duties or his role within the company. 
The petitioner submitted an organizational chart for the U.S. company, which identified Hsiao Chen as 
ownerlpresident, an accounting department staffed by a controller, a sales department staffed by two sales 
representatives, a marketing department with two staff members, and a shipping department staffed by three 
"workers." The beneficiary's position was not identified on the chart. The petitioner attached an employee list 
and identified the amount of compensation paid to each worker. 
The director issued a request for evidence on February 27, 2006, in part, instructing the petitioner to submit 
additional evidence to establish that the beneficiary would be employed by the United States entity in a 
managerial or executive capacity. Specifically, the director requested: (1) an offer of employment from the 
petitioner clearly describing the duties to be performed by the beneficiary and indicating in what capacity he 
would be employed; (2) a breakdown of the number of hours devoted to each of the beneficiary's proposed 
job duties on a weekly basis; (3) evidence of the staffing of the United States company, including the number 
of employees, the duties performed by each employee, evidence of wages paid to employees and the 
management and personnel structure of the company; and (4) if the company utilizes contractors, evidence 
documenting the number of contractors utilized and the duties performed. 
The petitioner, through counsel, submitted a response dated May 19,2006. The petitioner's response included 
a letter dated May 1 1, 2006, in which the petitioner confirmed the beneficiary's employment in the position of 
vice president since April 2005. The petitioner described the beneficiary's duties as follows: 
As Vice President, he is the one who is obtained [sic] authorization from the parent company 
to be the No. 2 CEO of the US entity. His job duties are working as Acting President at the 
President's absence in the overall matters of the U.S. entity, which include management & 
administration, finance and business, etc.; therefore he conducts all top decisions when the 
President is absent. He participates in organizing and presiding over the company, 
designating business plans & policies, taking charge in all trading affairs of the US entity, 
managing employees, recruiting, training, evaluating employees, keeping in close touch with 
[the] parent company and reporting to the parent company about the directions the US 
company is going towards; he gives instructions to dept. managers and writing [sic] 
comments upon the reports submitted to him; finally, he is the person who has the right to 
report to the parent company in case that he believes that the expense checks signed by the 
President are not for the benefit of in [sic] the best interest of the company. 
The petitioner also provided the requested breakdown of how the beneficiary's time is allocated on a weekly 
basis: 
Page 5 
Monday 
1. Listen to reports made by Import & Export Manager(s), check the progress the Import & 
Export Manager(s) has (have) made, and find new problems in organizing, planning and 
performing if any. Time devoted: 5 hours 
2. Read the financial reports. Time devoted: 3 hours 
Tuesday 
1. Give new instructions to Import & Export Manager(s) and Marketing Researcher(s) 
involved in working out new plans and targets and the way how to organize, schedule 
jobs, execute designs and relieve them, and give criticism or encouragement. Time 
devoted: approximately 3 hours 
2. Check the financial policies. Time devoted: 4 hours 
Wednesday 
1. Listen to reports made by Marketing Researcher(s), examine the progress the Section has 
undergone, and search the points getting improvements in. Time devoted: 4 hours 
2. 
 Study with the marketing reports and discuss them with Vice President. Time devoted: 4 
hours. 
Thursday 
1. Issue orders and instructions to Import & Export Manager(s) and Finance Manager as to 
the goals, new policies, proposed schedules, and the progress to organize and cany out 
the work, coming with praise or discussion. Time devoted: about 6 hours 
2. Study with the marketing polices and examine them. 
Friday 
1. Study with international trade materials and reports. Time devoted: 1 hour 
2. Consider the foreign trade progress. Time devoted: 1 hour 
3. Review financial reports and discuss with Finance Manager. Time devoted: 1 hour 
4. Report the situation of the US entity to Parent Company. Time devoted: 1 hour 
5. Conclude this week's business performance. Time devoted: 1 hour. 
The petitioner submitted an organizational chart for the U.S. company which indicates that the beneficiary 
reports to the president,ho was previously identified as the petitioner's controller.' The chart 
indicates that the beneficiary, as vice president, supervises "finance," "market research," and "market." The 
1 
 The AAO notes that the documents submitted in su~~ort of the initial ~etition. and the r>etitionerls letter 
. A 
submitted on appeal, are signed byin the capacity of company pesident. It iiincumbent 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). 
Page 6 
partment or division is divided into "Group (1)" and "Group (2)." Only the beneficiary and the 
Mr. 
 are identified by name on the organizational chart. 
The petitioner also attached an employee list describing the duties of each position within the company. The 
petitioner indicated that it employs a part-time finance manager, who manages the company's funds, 
assists the president with budget creation, budget control, and fund supervision, and frequently reports to the 
president on financial matters and recommended financial strategies. The petitioner identified the positions of 
part-time marketing research department manager and market researcher, and stated that the department 
would require "one employee in this year and two more as needed in the coming year." The petitioner did not 
indicate that these positions are currently filled. 
The petitioner indicated that the beneficiary currently serves as acting import and export department manager, 
and noted that the department requires one manager and two assistants. The petitioner stated that the 
department is "designed to coordinate successful operations of import and export trading," "make every effort 
to serve our clients," and "fulfill required tasks." Finally, the petitioner indicated that it employs four market 
representatives who are in charge of the petitioner's retail business and serve the petitioner's customers "face 
to face." 
The petitioner submitted copies of its IRS Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statement for 2005, confirming 
payments in the amount of $9,000 to the beneficiary and $15,500 to The petitioner's Form W-3, 
Transmittal of Wage and Tax Statements, and Form 940, Employer's Annual Unemployment Tax Return, also 
confirm that the petitioner paid total wages of $24,500 in 2005. The petitioner also submitted copies of its IRS 
Forms 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income, showing non-employee compensation payments to the beneficiary 
and David Chang, as well as to the four individuals identified as market representatives, in amounts ranging 
from $3,800 to $5,000; to th identified as the company's finance manager, in the amount of 
$20,100; and to one individual hose job title was not identified, in the amount of $8,200. Each of 
the Forms 1099 is 
 rrected." The AAO notes that none of the individuals identified on the Forms 
1099, other than Mr 
 ere included in the employee list and organizational chart submitted in support 
of the petition in Jun 
The petitioner also provided a copy of its 2005 IRS Form 1120S, U.S. Income Tax Return for an S 
Corporation, which shows $9,000 paid in compensation to officers, $15,500 in salaries and wages, $0 for 
costs of labor, and no monies paid to outside workers or contract personnel. 
The director denied the petition on July 17, 2006, concluding that the petitioner had failed to establish that the 
beneficiary would be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. The director observed that 
the record did not demonstrate that the beneficiary would serve at a senior level within the organization other 
than in position title, or that he would manage a subordinate staff of professional, managerial or supervisory 
personnel who would relieve him from performing non-qualifying duties. The director acknowledged the 
petitioner's claim that the beneficiary would supervise the import and export manager and market researchers, 
but noted that the beneficiary himself was identified as the import and export manager, while the market 
researchers appear to be salespersons. The director also noted that the beneficiary's salary of $9,000 was not 
indicative of an employee performing executive duties. The director concluded that it is probable that the 
beneficiary would be primarily engaged in the performance of non-qualifying duties for the purpose of the 
requested visa classification. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that since the petitioner "merged" with the beneficiary's foreign employer, the 
beneficiary became the petitioner's vice president, was placed in charge of the sales department, and 
"designed the new structure of the company." The petitioner further states: 
Our company does not only have the operating in the Untied [sic] States, but also gained a 
large operation in China. The company executive does not only be [sic] in charge of the staff 
in here that is relativelv brief at this moment. However. if vou see and add uu the com~anv's 
, . . - 
partner,td., in China, out [sic] team is not-just the size as 
you described in your denial letter. The market of [the] new company has expanded 
dramatically from the Untied [sic] States to China. The major market of the new company is 
in China. This is why our new company appointed [the beneficiary] as the vice president and 
the one who is charge of the sale department. 
[The beneficiary] is not only supervising the staff and the corporate officer here in New York, 
but also supervising and managing the management teams of our mother company in China. 
[The beneficiary's] function in the picture of our new company after the merge as the 
corporate executive is vital to our company, since he is the one who has profound managerial 
experience in the industry in China. . . . 
[The beneficiary] is the one who is on the very senior level of our company. He is managing 
the subordinate staff of professional, managerial, and supervisory personnel who are relive 
[sic] him from the daily non-qualifying duties. Please keep in mind that our company 
presence is not a large size company, but with a large operation in China. However, since we 
have our mother company in China and the market in China is a major market of our 
company after the merger, [the beneficiary] is extremely important executive officer of our 
company for our future development and company business structure change since the merge. 
The petitioner also clarifies the beneficiary's salary, noting that in addition to the $9,000 reported on his Form 
W-2, the beneficiary reported $25,000 on Form 1040, Schedule C. The petitioner submits a letter from its 
claimed parent company indicating that the beneficiary also continues to receive a base monthly salary from 
the foreign entity in the amount of RMB 15,000. 
Upon review of the record in ths matter and for the reasons discussed herein, the petitioner has not established 
that the beneficiary would be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
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. $ 204.50)(5). The petitioner's description of the job 
duties must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are 
either in an executive or managerial capacity. Id. 
The petitioner has failed to submit a detailed, credible position description explaining the managerial or 
executi3e job duties the beneficiary performs on a day-to-day basis. The letter submitted by the petitioner in 
response to the director's request for evidence provides only a general overview of the beneficiary's claimed 
responsibilities and fails to convey any understanding of the managerial or executive tasks he performs. For 
example, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary "participates in organizing and presiding over the 
company," "designates business plans and policies," "takes charge in all trading affairs," reports to the parent 
company, and "gives instructions to [department] managers." The petitioner does not indicate how the 
beneficiary's responsibilities are shared with the president, whose duties are essentially the same as those 
attributed to the beneficiary, nor does it identify the beneficiary's "plans and policies," or the specific duties he 
performs in relation to "trading affairs." 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 provide any detail or explanation of the beneficiary's activities in the 
course of his daily routine. The actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin 
Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1 103,1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), afyd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Further, the petitioner indicated that in addition to his role as vice president, the beneficiary is the acting 
manager and sole employee of the company's import and export department, which the petitioner indicates 
would be fully staffed with three employees, a manager and two assistants. The petitioner did not provide a 
concrete description of the beneficiary's duties with respect to import and export activities, or indicate how 
much of the beneficiary's time would be allocated to this function, which includes handling "foreign and 
domestic trade." Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). It is reasonable to 
assume, and has not been shown otherwise, that as the only employee in the department, the beneficiary 
would be required to perform all of the non-managerial tasks associated with import, export and domestic 
distribution of products in the United States, and that these duties would not be incidental to any managerial 
duties he performs. 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 101(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 (Comrn. 1988). 
The AAO acknowledges the petitioner's submission of a description regarding how the beneficiary allocates 
his time on a weekly basis; however, the information provided does not assist in clarifying the beneficiary's 
actual job duties or the proportion of time the beneficiary devotes to managerial versus non-managerial duties. 
For example, the petitioner indicated that the beneficiary allocates 14 hours per week to listening to reports 
made by and issuing orders and instructions to the import and export manager, and an additional four hours 
per week discussing marketing reports with the vice president. However, since the beneficiary himself is 
claimed to hold the positions of vice president and import and export department manager, these duties are 
not credible. As discussed above, it appears that either the beneficiary himself is performing the import1 
export function or he does not actually manage this department as claimed by the petitioner. In either case, 
the AAO is left to question the validity of the petitioner's claims and the remainder of the beneficiary's 
claimed duties. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the 
Page 9 
reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 
I&N Dec. 582,591 (BIA 1988). 
The beneficiary is also described as devoting a significant portion of his time to providing instructions to 
marketing researchers, yet the petitioner has not indicated that these positions are actually staffed. Again, it is 
unclear how the beneficiary can review reports or issue instructions to employees who have not been hired, 
and it has not been established who actually performs market research activities for the company. Finally, the 
petitioner indicates that the beneficiary devotes approximately fourteen hours per week to reviewing financial 
policies and reports and issuing instructions to the finance manager, however, the job description for the 
finance manager position indicates that this employee reports directly to the president. Again, 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. at 591-92. 
Overall, the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's position is too vague to establish what his actual duties 
are, such that they could be classified as managerial or executive in nature. In addition, as discussed further 
below, the petitioner has not provided a consistent account of its staffing levels, or credible evidence of its 
organizational structure as of the date of filing. As such, the AAO is left without a clear context in which to 
analyze the stated job duties, and it is impossible to conclude that the beneficiary would be employed in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary is relieved from performing non-qualifying duties by a 
staff of subordinate managers, supervisors and professionals. The petitioner also asserts for the first time on 
appeal that the beneficiary is responsible for the "sales department" and supervises "management teams" 
working for the petitioner's claimed parent company in China. However, in response to the request for 
evidence, the petitioner provided a breakdown of the beneficiary's duties on a weekly basis and indicated that 
the beneficiary would spend only one hour per week reporting to the alleged parent company, without making 
any reference to oversight of any employees of the foreign entity. On appeal, a petitioner cannot offer a new 
position to the beneficiary, or materially change a position's title, its level of authority within the 
organizational hierarchy, or the 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). A petitioner may not 
make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to CIS requirements. See 
Matter of lzurnrni, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm. 1998). 
 Further, even if the beneficiary did 
supervise employees in the foreign entity, the petitioner did not clarify how these China-based employees 
would relieve him of performing the day-to-day operations of the U.S. company. 
Therefore, an analysis of the beneficiary's supervisory authority will be limited to the United States 
organization. Although the beneficiary is not required to supervise personnel, if it is claimed that his 
managerial duties involve supervising employees, the petitioner must establish that the subordinate employees 
are supervisory, professional, or managerial. See 5 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. However, in this case, the 
record does not clearly indicate the number or types of positions to be supervised by the beneficiary as of the 
date of filing. At the time of filing in June 2005, the petitioner claimed to employ an ownerlpresident, a 
Page 10 
controller, two sales representatives, a marketing employee, an Internet marketing employee, and three 
shipping department workers. There is no evidence of payments to any of the employees named in the 
organizational chart, with the exception of the controller. In response to the request for evidence in May 2006, 
the petitioner claimed to employ the controller as president, the beneficiary as vice president, a finance 
manager, and four marketing representatives who performed the retail sales activities of the company. While 
the petitioner submitted copies of IRS Forms 1099 as evidence of payments to these employees, the AAO 
notes that the petitioner did not appear to report any payments to contract employees or other outside labor on 
its 2005 corporate tax return. It is also unclear when, or if, the petitioner employed the workers identified on 
the initial organizational chart submitted in support of the petition in June 2005, and the petitioner provided 
no explanation for the submission of two completely different organizational charts. The AAO will not 
attribute the changes to staff turnover or company restructuring in the absence of clear documentation 
showing the staffing of the company as of the date the petition was filed. Based on these inconsistencies, it is 
not possible to determine who the beneficiary would supervise or whether such employees would be 
employed in managerial, supervisory or professional positions. 
A few errors or minor discrepancies are not reason to question the credibility of an alien or an employer 
seeking immigration benefits. See, e.g., Spencer Enterprises Inc. v. US., 345 F.3d 683, 694 (9th Cir., 2003). 
However, anytime a petition includes numerous errors or discrepancies, and the petitioner fails to resolve 
those errors and discrepancies after CIS provides an opportunity to do so, those inconsistencies will raise 
serious concerns about the veracity of the petitioner's assertions. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's 
proof may undermine the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa 
petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. In this case, the discrepancies catalogued above lead the AAO 
to conclude that the evidence of the beneficiary's eligibility is not credible. It is impossible to determine what 
duties the beneficiary would perform, whether his duties would be primarily managerial or executive in 
nature, or whether he would truly serve in a senior role within the petitioner's organizational hierarchy. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary would be employed in a primarily 
managerial or executive capacity, and the appeal will be dismissed. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the final issue to be discussed is whether the petitioner has established 
that a qualifying relationship exists between the U.S. company and the beneficiary's former overseas 
employer. 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 
9 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(l)(C); see also 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5Cj)(2) (providing definitions of 
the terms "affiliate" and "subsidiary"). 
The petitioner claims to be a subsidiary o 
 , located in 
25, 2005 that the U.S. company sold 50 percent of its 
shares to 
 ., "in early 2005." The 
~nd~cates that the company was wholly owned b- 
t that time. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the U.S. company became a subsidiary of the 
foreign entity in 2005 because it now owns, directly or indirectly, half of the petitioner. 
Page 11 
The petitioner also submitted, inter alia, the following documents: 
A translation of minutes from a meeting of the foreign entity's board of directors on 
December 14, 2004 at which the board allegedly decided to acquire a 50% interest in 
the petitioner. The board further decided that 95% of this 50% share would belong to 
50% share would belong to "the US subsidiary 
company," 
An undated "contract" (executed and notarized on April 25, 2005) in which the 
petitioner agrees to sell 50% of its shares to the foreign entity and its United States 
subsidiary7~aragraph 9 of the contract states that 90% of the 50% 
share would be sold to the foreign entity and 10% of the 50% share would be sold to 
A shareholders' agreement dated May 31, 2005 in which the shareholders of the 
petitioner are identified a(100 shares or 50%) m90 shares or 
45%), and the beneficiary (10 shares or 5%). 
On February 27,2006, the director requested additional evidence. The director requested, inter alia, copies of 
all share certificates, stock ledgers, the petitioner's articles of incorporation and all subsequent amendments, 
and any other evidence documenting ownership and control of the petitioner. 
In response, the petitioner submitted a letter dated March 6, 2006 in which it asserts that the foreign entity 
owns all 200 shares or 100% of the petitioner's stock, and notes that the purchase price was $1.2 million. In 
support, the petitioner submitted 20 stock certificates. Certificates 4 through 20 are blank. Certificates 1 (10 
shares), 2 (100 shares), and 3 (90 shares) collectively represent the issuance of 200 shares of stock to the 
foreign entity. All three stock ce 
 May 3 1, 2005. The petitioner also submitted a resolution 
from the board of directors of 
 dated April 20, 2005, indicating the foreign company's 
intention to purchase 200 shares of the petitioning company at the price of $1.2 million. Finally, the 
petitioner's response included a copy of the U.S. company's 2005 IRS Form 1120S, U.S. Income Tax Return 
for an S Corporation, which indicates that the company has one shareholder. According to Schedule K-1, the 
beneficiary owns 100 percent of the petitioner's stock. 
In this matter, the petitioner has not established that it has a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity. 
The record is so rife with unresolved inconsistencies regarding the petitioner's ownership and control that it is 
impossible for Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) to confirm the identities of the petitioner's owner 
or owners. As outlined above, the petitioner has provided three different descriptions of its ownership and 
control. Initially, the petitioner described itself as bein 45% owned by the foreign entity, 5% owned by the 
foreign entity's United States subsidiary, 
e 
and 50% owned by a third party. Second, the 
petitioner provided a shareholders' agreement ated May 3 1, 2005 in which the petitioner's shareholders are 
identified as(100 shares or 50%)90 shares or 45%), and the beneficiary (10 shares 
or 5%). The petitioner makes no attempt to reconcile this shareholders' agreement with the "contract" 
executed on April 25, 2005, or its assertions in the May 25, 2005 letter. 
Page 12 
Third, in response to the request for evidence, the petitioner described itself as being 100% owned by the foreign 
entity. In support of thls assertion, the petitioner submitted stock certificates dated May 3 1,2005. The petitioner 
makes no attempt to reconcile this new characterization of its ownership and control with the two earlier 
variations. Given that the petitioner was incorporated in 2002 and reported on its corporate tax returns in the 
years 2002 through 2004 that the company was wholly owned byit is simply not credible that the 
petitioner issued its stock certificate number 1 to the foreign entity in 2005, as represented by the petitioner. If 
CIS fails to believe that a fact stated in the petition is true, CIS may reject that fact. Section 204(b) of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. fj 1154(b); see also Anetekhai v. I.N.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). The 
petitioner declined to submit a copy of its stock transfer ledger, although this document was specifically 
requested. Any failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for 
denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2@)(14). 
Finally, the petitioner's 2005 corporate tax return (Form 1120s) indicates that the beneficiary is the sole 
owner of the company. To qualify as a subchapter S corporation, a corporation's shareholders must be 
individuals, estates, certain trusts, or certain tax-exempt organizations, and the corporation may not have any 
foreign corporate shareholders. See Internal Revenue Code, § 136 1 (b)(1999). A corporation is not eligible to 
elect S corporation status if a foreign corporation owns it in any part. Accordingly, since the petitioner would 
not be eligible to elect S-corporation status with a foreign parent corporation, it appears that the U.S. entity is 
owned by one or more individuals residing within the United States rather than by a foreign entity. This 
conflicting information has not been resolved. 
As addressed above, a few errors or minor discrepancies are not reason to question the credibility of an alien 
or an employer seelung immigration benefits. See, e.g., Spencer Enterprises Inc. v. US., 345 F.3d 683, 694 
(9th Cir., 2003). However, anytime a petition includes numerous errors and discrepancies, and the petitioner 
fails to resolve those errors and discrepancies after CIS provides an opportunity to do so, those 
inconsistencies will raise serious concerns about the veracity of the petitioner's assertions. Doubt cast on any 
aspect of the petitioner's proof may undermine the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence 
offered in support of the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. In this case, the discrepancies and 
errors catalogued above lead the AAO to conclude that the evidence submitted in support of the claimed 
qualifying relationship is not credible. For this additional reason, the petition cannot be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by the 
AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
When the AAO denies a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a challenge only 
if he 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). 
Page 13 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternative basis for the decision. 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. fj 1361. 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.