dismissed EB-1C Case: Import/Export

idenwring data deleted to 
U.S. Department of fIomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave.. N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
u. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
- 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: w 0 4 2m 
SRC 04,212 52051 
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. 8 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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based visa petition.' The matter 
is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AN) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed an immigrant visa petition seeking to classifL the beneficiary as a multinational manager 
or executive pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
5 1153(b)(l)(C). The petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida that is 
engaged in the import and export of communications and media recording products, as well as equine 
equipment and goods. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as its general manager. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary had 
been employed by the foreign entity or would be employed by the United States entity in a primarily 
managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner contends that the beneficiary's former and present positions entail 
performing primarily managerial job duties. Counsel submits a brief and documentary 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 or 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. 
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 
In a decision dated July 28, 2005, the director denied the immigrant visa petition based on the petitioner's 
abandonment of the petition under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(I3). The petitioner subsequently 
demonstrated in a motion to reopen and reconsider its timely response to the director's request for additional 
evidence, thereby resulting in Citizenship and Immigration Services' (CIS) October 28, 2005 decision 
withdrawing its original denial. Following his withdrawal of the initial decision, the director issued a second 
request for evidence and ultimately denied the petition. 
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 in this proceeding is whether the beneficiary would be employed by the United States entity in 
a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 1101(a)(44)(A), provides: 
The term "managerial capacity" means an assignment within 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) 
 Has the authority to hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel actions 
(such as promotion and leave authorization) if another employee or other employees are directly 
supervised; 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 IOl(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 1 101(a)(44)(B), provides: 
The term "executive capacity" means 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 from higher level executives, the board of 
directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
The petitioner submitted the instant petition on July 28, 2004, noting that the beneficiary would be employed 
as the general manager of the three-person United States corporation. In an appended June 21, 2004 letter, 
the petitioner provided the following statement of the beneficiary's proposed employment: 
The foleneficiary will serve on a permanent basis on [sic] the position of [gfeneral manager 
of the American enterprise's import & export operations. The beneficiary will continue to 
establish and implement the purchase goals and policies of the enterprise, including its 
purchasing structure, components and functions. The beneficiary will continue implementing 
and establishing the operation's long-term corporate goals and policies, including its 
structure, components, investments, and possible franchising of its equine services division. 
The beneficiary will exercise wide latitude in discretionary decision-making, and shall 
receive directives and general supervision from the President. The beneficiary will 
coordinate, manage, and oversee international (Columbia, United States, and Latin America) 
and national activities involved with buying and procuring goods and services for the 
company. The beneficiary will oversee the establishment and operations of the company's 
equine division in the United States. The beneficiary will have and exercise discretion over 
the day-to-day operations of the American enterprise, and shall directly report the status and 
functions of the organization directly to the company's [pfresident, to which the beneficiary 
shall be solely responsible for his acts and discretionary management powers. 
The permanent [gleneral [mlanager, [clorporate [vlice-[plresident, and ftlreasurer position 
that [the beneficiary] will hold with [the petitioning entity] is executive/managerial in nature. 
These knctions are senior level within [the petitioning entity's] hierarchy. The functions 
entail, but are not limited to, management of import/export responsibilities, sales, marketing, 
new developments, and purchases within the organization. The beneficiary will also oversee 
the department of a corporate equine related division for [the petitioner]. The beneficiary will 
manage and oversee the work of the company's personnel, and any independent contractors, 
in the sale, marketing, and distribution of the equine division, and the beneficiary will have 
the authority to recommend, hire, fire, and promote employees as well as approving leave 
authorizations for the staff. The beneficiary will exercise dscretion over the day-to-day 
company operations and related managerial and executive responsibilities, and he will 
respond and report directly to the company's [plresident. 
The petitioner submitted two additional statements with the Form 1-140 that included essentially the same job 
descriptions as that provided above. The petitioner also provided a copy of its organizational chart, on which 
the beneficiary was identified as the company's vice-president, subordinate to the president. Based on the 
organizational chart, the beneficiary would supervise a secretary, five vendors, and an independent contractor 
who rendered shipping and cargo services, as well as two outside attorneys and an accountant. 
The director issued a request for evidence on March 31, 2005, however, did not address the beneficiary's 
proposed employment capacity in the United States. In a second request for evidence, dated October 28, 
2005, the director requested that the petitioner submit a "definitive statement" describing the job duties to the 
be performed by the beneficiary and addressing the following: (1) the beneficiary's job title; (2) a 
comprehensive list of job duties; (3) the managers or supervisors working subordinate to the beneficiary, as 
well as a brief description of their positions, related job duties, and educational levels; (4) the qualifications 
necessary for each position; (5) the "level of authority held by the beneficiary"; (6) an explanation of whether 
"the beneficiary functions at a senior level within the corporation"; and (7) a description of who performs the 
services offered by the petitioner. The director also requested evidence of the petitioner's staffing levels, 
specifically identifying the beneficiary's position in the organization, as well as Internal Revenue Service 
(IRS) Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, for each worker employed in 2004. 
Counsel for the petitioner responded in a letter dated December 26,2005 and attached the following statement 
from the petitioner describing the beneficiary's proposed employment as general manager: 
The permanent [gleneral [mlanager position that [the beneficiary] will hold with [the petitioning 
entity] is executive and managerial in nature, and essentially entails the executive management of the 
organization in the United States on a long-term basis. Because the [gleneral [mlanager functions in 
a senior level position with [the petitioner's] hierarchy, [the beneficiary's] duties and functions will 
include: 
Overseeing all the investments of the American corporation and other financial and 
managerial related functions, which will entail 75% of his time, including: 
9 Directing and coordinating activities concerned with the pricing, sales, and/or 
distribution of our goods and products; 
9 Reviewing financial statements, sales and activity reports, and other 
performance data to measure productivity and goal achievement and to 
determine areas needing cost reduction and program improvement; 
> Determining the products to be sold, and setting prices and credit terms, 
based on forecasts of customer demand; 
> Overseeing activities directly related to providing products to clients; 
9 Establishing and implementing company policies, goals, objectives, and 
procedures, as well as conferring with board members, organization officials, 
and sub-contracted staff and advisors, as necessary; 
> Directing and coordinating the organization's financial and budget activities 
to fund operations, maximize investments, and increase efficiency; 
> An [mlonitoring the business to ensure it efficiently and effectively provides 
the needed services while staying within budgetary limits. 
[The beneficiary] will also manage and oversee the work of [the petitioner's] 
subcontracted personnel, and will exercise discretion over the day-today operations, 
which will entail 15% of his time, and will include functions such as: 
> Managing sub-contractors and assigning specific duties; 
> Determining staffing requirements, when needed, and interviewing, hiring, 
and training new employees, or overseeing those personnel processes, when 
such employees are needed above and beyond the company's subcontractors. 
The petitioner further noted that the beneficiary would spend 10 percent of his time "managing and 
overseeing the complete integration of the American enterprise." The petitioner listed executive and 
managerial "attributes" held by the beneficiary, which the petitioner explained the beneficiary would apply 
during his management of the United States entity. The petitioner did not provide evidence related to its 
staffing levels. Nor did it address whether it employed anyone other than the beneficiary. Based on the 
beneficiary's IRS Form W-2 for the years 2003 and 2004, the beneficiary received an annual salary of 
$12,000, which is $12,000 less than the total amount in salaries reported by the petitioner on its 2004 income 
statement. It is therefore questionable whether the petitioner employed another worker, and if so, the capacity 
in which the worker was employed and whether it was on a part-time or full-time basis. 
In a decision dated January 10, 2006, the director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated that the 
beneficiary would be employed by the United States entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
The director noted the responsibilities assigned to the beneficiary, but stated that such job duties as "business 
marketing, staff recruitment and supervision" comprised "the daily productive tasks of the company." The 
director noted that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that "lower-level productive tasks" would not be a 
"primary component" of the beneficiary's position. Consequently, the director denied the petition. 
Counsel for the petitioner filed an appeal on February 13,2006, contending that Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (CIS) failed to understand the beneficiary's job duties and his qualification as a manager or 
executive. In an attached appellate brief, dated February 9, 2006, counsel claims that the beneficiary's 
proposed job duties qualify as being primarily managerial and executive in nature, as he would "plan, 
manage, supervise, organize, direct, and control an organization or its major functions." In his brief, counsel 
summarized the responsibilities previously noted by the petitioner for the record, and stated that "[tlhese 
specific duties, along with the others contained in [the] Ep]etitionerls statement, prove that the proffered 
position includes planning for the organization or its major functions," as well as "managing and controlling 
[the United States] organization or its major functions." Counsel restates portions of the beneficiary's job 
responsibilities as evidence of his "supervisory duties" and "organizational functions." Counsel further states 
that the beneficiary's "control over the organization or its major functions is inherent in the proffered 
position." Counsel states: 
[Tlhe proffered position entails the executive management of the organization in the United 
States on a long-term basis. Exhibit 2 at page 1. Furthermore, control is inherent in the 
proffered position given that [the] [bleneficiary will be responsible for '[efstablishing and 
implementing company policies, goals, objectives, and procedures.' Furthermore, [the] 
[pletitioner's statement that [the] foleneficiary confer[s] with board members and 
organization officials, 'as necessary,' attests that [the] [bleneficiary is not required to obtain 
approval for his managerial and executive acts, and need only seek the board's advice as [the] 
[bleneficiary deems necessary. 
Counsel claims that the petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence "that the proffered 
position in the United States entails the planning, managing, supervising, organizing, direction, and control of 
[the] [pletitioner's organization or its major functions." Counsel resubmits on appeal the petitioner's 
December 26,2005 statement outlining the job duties related to the beneficiary's position of genera1 manager. 
Upon review, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary would be employed by the United 
States entity 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. 5 204.56)(5). 
The petitioner does not clarify whether the beneficiary is claiming to be primarily engaged in managerial 
duties under section 101(a)(#)(A) of the Act, or primarily executive duties under section 101(a)(44)(B) of 
Page 7 
the Act. A beneficiary may not claim to be employed as a hybrid "executive/manager" and rely on partial 
sections of the two statutory definitions. Here, the petitioner initially presented three different positions that 
the beneficiary would occupy - general manager, corporate vice-president, and treasurer - and stated that all 
are "executive/managerial in nature." The petitioner's subsequent responses to the director's request for 
evidence and on appeal are equally indistinct, identifyrng the beneficiary's employment as being both 
"executive and managerial in nature" and as comprising "duties [that] are executive and managerial." The 
petitioner failed to specifically aver or establish the particular capacity in which the beneficiary would be 
employed. If the petitioner chooses to represent the beneficiary as both an executive and a manager, it must 
establish that the beneficiary meets each of the four criteria set forth in the statutory definition for executive 
and the statutory definition for manager. As discussed below, the petitioner has not demonstrated the 
beneficiary's eligibility for classification as a manager or executive. 
The petitioner did not provide a sufficient description detailing the managerial or executive job duties to be 
performed by the beneficiary as the company's general manager. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5@(5) 
requires a petitioner to "clearly describe the duties to be performed by the [beneficiary]," such that his 
employment would be characterized as managerial or executive in nature. In the instant matter, the 
petitioner's statement, while lengthy, contains limited detail as to the specific managerial or executive tasks to 
be performed by the beneficiary. For example, the petitioner's initial letter stated generally that the 
beneficiary would: (1) establish the goals and policies of the corporation's purchasing, "structure, 
components, [and] investments"; (2) "exercise wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; (3) manage and 
oversee purchases nationally and internationally; (4) "exercise discret~on over the day-to-day operations of the 
American enterprise"; and (5) perform "senior-level functions" such as managing the company's imports and 
exports, "sales, marketing, new developments, and purchases." 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. Suva, 724 F. 
Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), afd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). The petitioner also noted the beneficiary's 
supervision over the petitioner's equine division, but failed to specifically address the beneficiary's role in this 
division or identify the managerial or executive job duties related to this responsibility. The actual duties 
themselves reveal the true nature of the employment. Id. at 1108. 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 (Comrn. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
Similarly, the petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence failed to identify a primarily 
managerial or executive position to be held by the beneficiary. The seven responsibilities identified by the 
petitioner as consuming 75 percent of the beneficiary's time are broadly presented, and do not detail the 
related managerial or executive job duties. The petitioner's vague claims included: directing pricing, sales 
and distribution, "[rleviewing financial statements, sales and activity reports," "[dfetermining the products to 
be sold" and the corresponding prices, overseeing customer service "activities," directing "financial and 
budget activities," and ensuring efficient and effective business operations. These overly broad statements are 
not sufficient to corroborate the claim that the beneficiary would be primarily performing managerial or 
executive job duties. Additionally, the additional job description does not clarify that initially offered by the 
petitioner, but merely incorporates new responsibilities that are equally unclear. See Matter ofMichelin Tire 
Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg. Comm. 1978) (finding that the petitioner must establish that the position 
offered to the beneficiary when the petition was filed merits classification as a managerial or executive 
position). 
Moreover, the majority of counsel's brief on appeal relies on restating the vague job duties already reviewed 
and considered by the director. The unsupported statements of counsel on appeal or in a motion are not 
evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight. SeeINS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 188-89 n.6 
(1984); Matter of Rarnirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1980). Also, despite counsel's suggestion, a 
beneficiary's "control," management or direction over a company cannot be assumed or considered "inherent" 
to his position merely on the basis of broadly-cast job responsibilities. The AAO is not compelled to deem the 
beneficiary to be a manager or executive simply because the beneficiary possesses a managerial or executive title. 
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 
answer a critical question in this case: What does the beneficiary primarily do on a daily basis? The actual 
duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 
at 1108. 
Furthermore, other than identifying the beneficiary as a manager, the petitioner has not documented the 
beneficiary's purported managerial or executive authority over the named outside vendors or independent 
contractor. In fact, based on the petitioner's December 26, 2006 statement, in which it explains that the 
beneficiary "must maintain constant contact with [ ] manufacturers and/or distributors" to monitor inventory 
levels, the beneficiary would not occupy a managerial or executive position with respect to the outside 
vendors, but would instead act as a service representative of the United States company. There is no evldence 
that the beneficiary personally directs or manages the company's vendors or those professionals rendering 
services to the petitioner. 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. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582,591 (BIA 1988). 
The record also fails to demonstrate that the petitioner maintains a staff sufficient to employ the beneficiary in 
a primarily managerial or executive capacity. Pursuant to section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
tj 1101 (a)(44)(C), if staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a 
managerial or executive capacity, CIS must take into account the reasonable needs of the organization, in 
light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the organization. 
The petitioner has not presented a clear illustration of its staffing levels. On Form 1-140, the petitioner 
claimed to employ a staff of three, however, identified only the beneficiary and a secretary as employees on 
its organizational chart. The remaining parties noted on the organizational chart are outside vendors and 
professionals or independent contractors. As noted previously, the petitioner provided for the record only one 
2004 IRS Form W-2, which had been issued to the beneficiary. However, based on the wages reflected on the 
beneficiary's Form W-2 and the amount in salaries reported on the petitioner's 2004 income statement, the 
petitioner employs at least one other employee. The petitloner has failed to clarifL its true staffing levels and 
those workers supervised by the beneficiary. The petitioner is obligated to clarify the inconsistent and 
conflicting testimony by independent and objective evidence. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BLA 
1988). 
The petitioner has also failed to document its use of outside vendors and an independent contractor, despite its 
claim in its December 26, 2005 statement that it "usually operates through sub-contractors." The record is 
devoid of documentary evidence, such as IRS Form 1099 or payments reflected on the petitioner's income 
statement for outside services, that the petitioner utilizes outside contractors to perform its non-qualifling 
functions. The AAO notes that the petitioner provided an incomplete copy of its 2004 federal income tax 
return, submitting only the first page of the tax return for the record. Again, going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of SofJlci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
In light of these discrepancies, the limited evidence suggests that the petitioner's two-person staff would not 
meet the reasonable needs of the petitioning entity. As the petitioner's primary function is to import and 
export goods, it is reasonable for the AAO to expect the petitioner to account for the performance of any 
related non-qualifymg tasks, including document preparation, shipping, receiving, and tax and duty payments, 
as well as those regular, administrative tasks pertaining to functions necessary to maintain business 
operations, such as banking, purchasing and personnel matters. In fact, the job description provided on the 
beneficiary's resume suggests that the beneficiary would personally perform the company's purchasing and 
price negotiations for products. Also, although the beneficiary is claimed to manage the company's marketing 
activities, the petitioner has not identified any lower-level employees engaged in the associated tasks that the 
beneficiary would manage. Moreover, the petitioner neglected to explain its relationship with the named 
vendors, particularly how the work of the vendors would support the beneficiary in a primarily managerial or 
executive capacity. Absent a clear description of the petitioner's staffing levels and evidence of its 
employment of lower-level employees and use of outside workers to perform the administrative and 
operational tasks of the business, the AAO cannot conclude that the reasonable needs of the petitioning 
organization may plausibly be met through the services of the beneficiary and a secretary. Regardless, the 
reasonable needs of the petitioner serve only as a factor in evaluating the lack of staff in the context of 
reviewing the claimed managerial or executive duties. The petitioner must still establish that the beneficiary 
is to be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity, pursuant to sections 
101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. As discussed above, the petitioner has not established this essential 
element of eligibility. 
Based on the foregoing discussion, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary would be 
employed by the United States entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
The AAO will next address the issue of whether the beneficiary was employed by the overseas company in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
In its initial filing, the petitioner identified the beneficiary as occupying the position of administrator in the 
foreign entity. In the beneficiary's attached resume, the job responsibilities associated with his former 
position were identified as: "overseeing and coordinating the sales and distribution of American made goods 
for the communications and media recording industry in Colombia." While the petitioner submitted an 
organizational chart of the foreign organization, the titles of the positions were not translated. The AAO 
notes that the positions reflected on the organizational chart are manager ("gerente"), sub-manager 
("subgerente"), administrative manager ("gerente administrative"), accountant ("contador"), and sales 
manager ("gerente de ventas"), as well as a sales department ("departamento de ventas"). 
In his October 28, 2005 request for evidence, the director asked that the petitioner submit a "definitive 
statementt' addressing the job duties performed by the beneficiary as administrator, as well as the following: 
(1) the beneficiary's job title; (2) a comprehensive list of his job duties in the foreign entity; (3) the managers 
or supervisors who worked subordinate to the beneficiary, as well as a brief description of their positions, 
related job duties, and educational levels; (4) the qualifications necessary for each position; (5) the "level of 
authority held by the beneficiary"; (6) an explanation of whether "the beneficiary function[ed] at a senior 
level within the [foreign] corporation"; and (7) a description of who provided the products or services offered 
by the foreign entity. The director also requested evidence of the foreign entity's staffing levels, specifically 
identifying the beneficiary's position in the organization. 
In his December 26, 2005 response, counsel attached a statement Erom the foreign entity, dated December 26, 
2005, explaining that the beneficiary's former positions of administrator and vice-president were executive 
and managerial in nature, and that 80 percent of the beneficiary's time was spent performing the following 
"main duties" : 
Directing and coordinating activities concerned with the pricing, sales, andor distribution 
of the [products] and goods our company sold, and sells; 
Overseeing activities directly related to providing products to clients; 
Determining the products to be sold, and setting prices and credit terms, based on 
forecasts of customer demand; 
Reviewing financial statements, sales and activity reports, and other performance data to 
measure productivity and goals achievement, and to determine areas needing cost 
reduction and program improvement; 
Directing and coordinating the organization's financial and budget activities to fund 
operations, maximize investments, and increase efficiency; 
Monitoring the business to ensure it [is] efficiently and effectively providing the needed 
services while staying within budgetary limits; 
And establishing and implementing company policies, goals, objectives, and procedures 
related to his specific duties, and accordingly, conferring with board members and 
company officials as necessary and when was required. 
The petitioner explained that an additional five percent of the beneficiary's time was spent managing the 
foreign entity's personnel and contracted workers, and exercising discretion over their day-to-day activities, 
while the remaining 15 percent of the beneficiary's time was spent determining expenditures, obtaining and 
providing information, developing working relationships, maintaining contact with distributors and 
manufacturers, handling complaints and disputes, and problem-solving. The foreign entity noted that while 
employed in the foreign entity, the beneficiary managed the company's legal representative-general 
supervisor, accountant, economist-general sales manager, storage manager, and contracted salespersons. The 
foreign entity provided a brief job description for each of the positions. 
In the January 10, 2006 decision, the director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated that the 
beneficiary was employed by the foreign entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. The director 
stated that the job description offered by the petitioner indrcated that the beneficiary performed the "daily 
productive tasks" of the foreign entity. The director stated that without additional information, the 
beneficiary's employment abroad could not be deemed to be primarily managerial or executive in nature. 
Consequently, the director denied the petition. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner contends that while employed by the foreign entity, the beneficiary was 
performing primarily managerial and executive job duties, which "entailed the executive management of the 
foreign company, with focus on the sale and distribution of the media products and goods the company sold." 
Counsel claims that contrary to the director's finding, the beneficiary's foreign employment "clearly entailed 
planning, managing, supervising, organizing, directing, and controlling the foreign organization or its major 
functions." Counsel states that the beneficiary was engaged in planning the products sold by the foreign 
entity, the appropriate offering prices, and credit terms, as well as determining "cost reduction and program 
improvement, and establishing and implementing company policies, goals, objectives, and procedures." 
Counsel explains that the beneficiary also managed the company's sales and distribution activities, its 
personnel and contracted workers, and exercised his authority to supervise the company by directing the 
company's "financial and budget activities to fund operations, maximize investments, and increase 
efficiency," monitoring the company's budget and maintaining appropriate staffing. Counsel contends that as 
the foreign entity's administrator, the beneficiary organized, directed and controlled major functions of the 
company in that he organized its sales, promotions, marketing strategies, "sales techniques, and sales control 
systems," and was not required to obtain approval from the foreign company prior to determining and 
implementing policies, goals and objectives. Counsel further states: 
As a manager, the foreign company expected [the beneficiary] to have knowledge of 
principles and procedures for personnel recruitment, selection, training, compensation and 
benefits, labor relations and negotiation, and personnel information systems. To effectively 
perform his role as the foreign company's vice-president, [the beneficiary] was to determining 
[sic] how money would be spent to get the work done, and accounting for these expenditures, 
and to consider the relative costs and benefits of potential actions to choose the most 
appropriate one. As an executive, [the beneficiary] was expected to develop constructive and 
cooperative workng relationships with others, and maintain them over time, especially with 
the manufacturers and distributors who provided the foreign company with the products that 
it sold . . . . And [the beneficiary] was expected to use relevant information and individual 
judgment to determine whether events or processes complied with applicable laws, 
regulations, or industry andor government standards, a function that can hardly be expected 
of first-line or non-managerial personnel. 
Counsel again submits on appeal the foreign entity's job statement describing the beneficiary's job duties. 
Upon review, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary was employed by the foreign 
organization 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. 5 204.5Cj)(5). 
The AAO notes that the job duties identified by the foreign entity as having occupied 80 percent of the 
beneficiary's time as the organization's administrator and vice-president are essentially the same as those job 
responsibilities attributed to the beneficiary as the petitioner's general manager. Additionally, in each 
position, the beneficiary was identified as spending a small portion of his time managing personnel and 
subcontracted workers, and exercising discretion over each business' day-to-day operations. The fact that the 
job duties associated with the beneficiary's former and present positions, which, the AAO again notes, bear 
different job titles, are ultimately the same raises doubt as to the reliability and authenticity of the evidence 
offered. 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. Matter of Ho, 19 
I&N Dec. 582,591 (BIA 1988). 
Additionally, based on the job descriptions offered subsequent to the initial filing, the petitioner appears to 
have expanded the beneficiary's foreign job responsibilities, suggesting that the beneficiary managed and 
directed functions of the organization rather than performed the non-qualifying functions himself. The 
information contained on the beneficiary's resume, which was submitted with the Form 1-140, limits the 
beneficiary's role in the foreign company to its sales and distribution functions. Alternatively, latter job 
descriptions incorporate such job duties as directing the company's finances and investments, determining the 
organization's budget, and overseeing staffing, including hiring and firing. When responding to a request for 
evidence or filing an 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 its 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). 
As discussed previously, the job description offered for the beneficiary's position as administrator of the 
foreign entity does not sufficiently identify the managerial or executive tasks performed by the beneficiary. 
The foreign organization's vague statements that the beneficiary directed pricing, sales and distribution, 
"[rfeview[ed] financial statements, sales and activity reports," "[d]etermin[ed] the products to be sold" and the 
corresponding prices, oversaw customer service "activities," directed "financial and budget activities," and 
ensured efficient and effective business operations do not detail the beneficiary's specific managerial or 
executive job duties. The actual duties themselves reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. 
Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 1108. Case law dictates that a petitioner's blanket claim of employing the 
beneficiary as a manager or executive without a description of how, when, where and with whom the 
beneficiary's job duties occurred is insufficient for establishing employment in a primarily managerial or 
executive capacity. Id. Without a comprehensive statement documenting the specific managerial or 
executive job duties associated with the beneficiary's position of administrator, the record fails to corroborate 
the petitioner's claim that the beneficiary was employed overseas in a primarily qualifying capacity. 
The claims made by counsel on appeal are equally vague, as they do not clarify what managerial or executive 
tasks the beneficiary performed on a daily basis. It is unclear what "financial and budget activities" the 
beneficiary oversaw, what "policies, goals, objectives, and procedures" the beneficiary established and 
implemented, or what managerial or executive tasks were incorporated in the beneficiary's responsibilities of 
organizing the company's "marketing strategy and tactics, product demonstration, sales techniques, and sales 
control systems." This is particularly questionable as the foreign entity claimed to employ a general sales 
manager subordinate to the beneficiary, who, presumably, would have been in charge of devising the 
business' marketing and sales strategies. 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 answer a critical question in this case: What does the beneficiary primarily 
do on a daily basis? The actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. 
Co., Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. at 1108. 
Furthermore, the record does not corroborate the foreign entity's claimed staffing levels. The foreign entity 
claimed in its December 26, 2005 letter that while employed abroad the beneficiary managed a legal 
representative-general supervisor, accountant, economist-general sales manager, storage manager, and 
contracted salespersons. The foreign entity's organizational chart, however, does not specifically identi@ the 
beneficiary's position of administrator and notes instead the positions of manager, sub-manager, 
administrative manager, accountant, and sales manager, as well as a sales department. The petitioner has 
failed to clarify the beneficiary's true position in the foreign entity or the employees supervised by the 
beneficiary. As a result, the AAO cannot conclude that the beneficiary occupied a primarily managerial or 
executive position in the foreign organization. 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. 
Based on the above discussion, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary was employed by the 
foreign organization in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. For this additional reason, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
Beyond the decision of the director, an additional issue is whether a qualifying relationship existed between 
the foreign and United States entities at the time of filing the immigrant visa petition as required in the Act at 
section 203(b)(l)(C). To establish a qualifying relationship under the Act and the regulations, the petitioner 
must show that the beneficiary's foreign employer and the proposed United States employer are the same 
employer (i.e. a United States 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"). 
The regulation 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. Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (BIA 1988); see also 
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 petitioner presented an April 28, 2004 certification with its initial filing in which the foreign entity 
claimed that the foreign and United States entities possessed an affiliate relationship in that each organization 
was owned by the same two shareholders. The foreign organization stated in the notarized document that the 
beneficiary and a second individual own equal shares of the two organizations. The petitioner did not submit 
documentary evidence, such as stock certificates, stock transfer ledgers, or corporate documentation, 
corroborating the claimed affiliate relationship. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is 
not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N 
Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 
1972)). 
The AAO notes that the director neglected to issue a notice requesting additional evidence Erom the petitioner 
with respect to the purported qualifying relationship between the foreign and United States entities. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 103.2(b)(8) requires the director to request additional evidence in instances "where 
there is no evidence of ineligibility, and initial evidence or eligibility information is missing." Where 
evidence of record indicates that a basic element of eligibility has not been met, it is appropriate for the 
director to deny the petition without a request for evidence. However, as in the instant matter, where the 
record was missing documentation demonstrating eligibility, a request for additional evidence would have 
been appropriate. Regardless of the director's procedural error, the Act and regulations clearly define the 
Page 14 
petitioner's obligation at the filing of the instant immigrant visa petition of establishing that the United States 
entity IS a subsidiary or affiliate of the beneficiary's foreign employer. See 8 C.F.R. $ 204.56)(3)(i)(C); see 
also $203(b)(l)(C) of the Act. 
The petitioner has not demonstrated the existence of a qualifying relationship between the foreign and United 
States organizations. For this additional reason, the petition will be denied. 
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. Unitedstates, 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). 
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 29 1 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.