dismissed EB-1C Case: Industrial Parts Import/Export

(b)(6)
. I 
DATE: JAN 1 4 2013 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
I.I.S.I>epartment uf llomeland Srrurity 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administr;llivc App~als Office (A/\0) 
20 MassadJUsetts 1\vc .. N.W .. MS 2090 
Washingtf•n. DC 205~9-20'!0 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration · 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)( I )(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. * 1153(h)( I )(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any funher inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a ft:e of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. * 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be ~ware that 8 C.F.R. § 103c5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to he filed within 
30 days of the decision that the m_otion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
l ~RonR~ . 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.usris.gov 
(b)(6)Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will 
be dismissed. 
' 
The petitioner is a Florida corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its president and 
chief executive officer (CEO). Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary 
as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(I)(C) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act). 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
On August 10. 2011 the director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed tn 
establish that it would employ the beneficiary in a primarily managerial or cxccut ive capacity. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declinedto treat the appc::ll as a motion 
and forwarded the appeal to the AA:O for review. On appeal, counsel disputes the director's 
decision as an "eri·oneous conclusion of law." Counsel asserts that the director improperly 
focused on whether the beneficiary would be primarily employed in a managerial capacity. 
Counsel asserts that the beneficiary will be serving in an executive capacity and is .not required to 
supervise professional empklyees. ln support of the beneficiary's employment as an executive. 
counsel notes that as a matter of law "one person can be an executive of ~~ company \vithout 
having a single employee." Counsel for the petitioner attaches a legal brief in support of the 
appeal. 
I. The Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states. in pertinent pmt: 
(l) Priority Workers.-- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified 
immigrants who arc aliens described in any of ~he following subparagraphs fA) 
through (C): 
*· * * 
I 
(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 corporal io11 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 a firm, corporation or other legal emity, or an affiliate 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
or subsidiary of that entity, and arc coming to the United Slates to work t'or the :-;amc entity. or ih 
affiliate or subsidiary. · 
A United States employer may file a petition on Form 1-140 for classification of an alientu1der 
section 203(b )(I )(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. No labor ccrtificat ion is 
required for this classification. the prospective employer in the United States must fumish ajob 
offer in the form of a stateiw::nt which indicates that the alien is to be employed in the United 
States in a managerial or executive capacity. Such a statement ·must dear! y describe the duties to 
be performed by the alien .. 
Section l0l(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8U.S.C. § ll0l(a)(44)(A). provides: 
The term "managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization 111 
· 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 supervis.ory, professional, or 
managerial employees, or manages an · essential function within the 
organization, or <1 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 a:-; other personnel 
actions (such as promotion and leave authorizatiot~) or. if no other 
employee . is directly supervised, functions at a senior level within the 
:organizatiqnal hierarchy or with respect to the fu~ction managed; and 
(iv) exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity · or 
function for v ... hich the employee has authority. 
Section l0l(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(B), provides: 
The tem1 "executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization Ill 
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. ccmlponcnt, or 
function; 
(iii) exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
(b)(6)
·page 4 
(iv) receives . only general supervision or direction from higher .level 
executives. the board of directors. or stockholders of the organization . 
II. U.S. Employment in a Managerial or Executive Capadty 
The sole issue addressed by the director is whether the petitioner est~blishcd that it will employ 
the beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
· The petitioner filed the immigrant visa petition (Form 1-140) on April 5. 1010. The tKtitioncr 
asserted that the beneficiary would be serving in a managerial or executive capacity as pre~idelll 
and CEO of the U.S. company, which is self-described on the petition as an industrial parts 
impott and export company with four employees and gross annual incom~ of $1.4 million. In 
support of the petition, counsel submitted a letter dated February 26. 2010 in which he described 
the beneficiary's proposed duties as follows: 
!The beneficiary! will be responsible for establishing i1ew goals and policies. 
oversee the day-to-day operations , make · manageriaf and strategical I sicJ 
decisions, etc. He will devote lOO% of his time, including v/eekencls, to v ... ork in 
· all the foregoing duties . 
Counsel also brielly described the roles or the three employees . ClltTCiltly v.·orking for the 
pettt1oner. Specifically, counsel stated that the petitioner employs a sccrelary , a warehouse 
manager, and a general operation manager, all claimed to be full-time employees. Counsel noted 
that the beneficiary intends to hire at least five employees in the near future "after he finishes 
negotiating new deals:" 
On December I, 20 I 0, the director issued a request for additional evidence ( RFE) instructing the 
petitioner to supplement the record with an organizational chart for the U.S. company. The 
director noted that the chart should include position . titles, position dcscriptit)ns. name s of 
employees filling the position s. lhe duration of each employee·s employmcnr with the company 
and their annual salaries. 
In response, the petitioner submitted an organizational chart identifying a total of four named 
employees including the beneficiary. The petitioner identified the beneficiary's proposed 
subordinates as Operation Manager, Office Assistant and Warehouse Manager. The petitioner 
also provided the following expanded description of the beneficiary's proposed duties: 
. I 
STRATEGIC PLANNING. Weekly time allocated 10 hrs . 
I. Recommends yearly budget for Board approval and prudently manages 
organization's resources within those budgets guidelines according to current 
laws and regulntions . 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
2. Revie\.v and report regularly Lo the Board on the overall progress and results 
against operating and f'inancial <)bjectives and initiate courses of act ion for 
improvement. 
3. Authorize commitment of corporate resources in the ordinary cour::-c or 
business in order to pursue the approved strategiC pl~ms ar,1d objectives of the 
Corporation provided, however, that major commitments, exposures and risk 
will be reported to the Board on a regular and timely basis .. 
4. Ensure that processes and systems are in place that enables the CEO to keep 
the Board fully informed on all material undertakings and activities (Jf the 
Corporation and' any material extemal factors emanating from indu~try. 
financial markets , governments and regulators . 
SALES AND MARKETING. Weekly lime allocated ·10 hrs. 
l. Formulate and execute sales plans and budgets that are consistent with and 
supporting of the company's annual business plan designed to increase sales 
and profits. 
Build strong professional business relationship with clients to enable sales and 
marketing goals to be achieved . 
3. Strive to understand client's business and communication challenges and 
recommend innovative solutions. 
4. Ensure that revenue goals are met or exceeded. 
5. Oversees design, marketing, promotion. dehvery anp quality of prograrns. 
products and services. 
6. Manage and oversee the required disclosure and other communications 
between the Corporation, shareholders, stakeholders and the puhlic. 
7. Act as the principal spokesperson for the Corporation. 
8. Ensure effective communications and appropriate relationships arc rnaintaincd 
with shareholders and the other stakeholders . 
HUMAN RESOURCES. Weekly time allocated 10 hrs. 
I. Effectively manages the human resources of the organization according to 
authorized personnel policies and procedures that fully conform lO current 
laws and regulations. 
(b)(6)Page 6 
2. Maintain a positive work climate that is conducive to al\racting. retaining and 
motivating top-quality employees at all levels . 
ln addition, the petitioner provided the job descriptions for the other three employees lisled as 
follows: 
OPERATION MANAGER 
1. Build strong professional business relationships with diems 10 ~:.·. nabk· sales 
and marketing goals to be achiev~d. Weekly time allocated 20 hrs. 
2. Strive to unoerstand client's business and communicating challeng es and 
recommend innovate !sic] solutions. Weekly time allocated 15 Ius. , .. 
3. Develop new accounts in the territory. Weekly time allocated 20 hrs. 
4. Monitor bill~ng and collecti~n status of accounts. Weekly time allocated 2 
hrs. 
OFFICE ASS 1ST ANT 
1. Perform a wide variety of executive secretarial and administrative duties as 
required by daily operations in office. Weekly time allocated 2 hrs. 
2. Answer telephones and intercoms. take messages, respond to mquiries. 
Weekly time allocated 4 hrs. 
3. Provide comprehensive secretarial and clerical support to sales st'aiT and 
management. Weekly time allocated I hr. 
WAREHOUSE MANAGER 
I. Take inventory control. 
2. Record of purchases and sales at appropriate times. 
3. Coordinate the delivery of merchandise to customers . 
The petitioner also provided copies of its IRS Forms 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax 
Return; · and Florida Form UCT -6. Employer's Quarterly Report for the first three quarters of 
2010, which confirmed payments to all three employees during this period . 
(b)(6)
Page7 
The director denied the petition on August 10, 20 lJ. The director determined that the petitioner 
did not establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a primari I y' managerial or execul i ve 
, position . In her decision. the director determined that the beneficiary would not he overseeing 
supervisory or professional employees and further found that the petitioner's evidence of wages 
paid in 1010 did not support its claim that all of the company's employees work on a full -time 
basis. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director's decision was erroneous as a matter of law because 
she considered only whether the beneficiary's employment would be in a managerial capacity. 
Counsel asserts that the beneficiary would be functioning in an exeClttive capacity. In support of 
this position. counsel further asserts th.at the beneficiary was not offered a managerial position. 
Upon review, counsel's assertions are not persuasive. The petitioner did not establish that the 
beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial or an 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.ER. § 204.5(j)(5) . In this matter, the 
beneficiary's duty descriptions do not adequately explain what the beneficiary will do on a day­
to-day basis as the president of the petitioning company. The petitioner initially provided a very 
general duty description. In response to the RFE, the petitioner included additional information 
but still did not adequately explain the particular taskS and specific duties expected of the 
beneficiary. The beneficiary's duty description was divided into three categories, each category 
accounting for ten hours per week. However, the petitioner has consistently stated that the 
beneficiary will work on a full-time basis, including --weekends, and failed to account for what 
duties the beneficiary would perform beyond the 30 hours included in the position breakdown. 
This unexplained discrepancy raises questions as to whether the petitioner has in fact provided a 
complete description of the beneficiary's proposed duties . 
Further, despite the allocation of hours to each broad category, the petitioner did not assign 
hourly allocations to specific tasks within each category. In fact, no specific tasks were included 
in the categories. For example, the category entitled "Sales and Marketing" contained duties that 
appeared to be non-qualifying such as relationship building with clients but it is unclear what 
tasks will be performed or how much time will be spent on them . . Similarly , the Human 
Resources . category requiring the beneficiary to effectively manage the human resources of the 
organization may potentially include a combination of qualifying and non-qualifying duties but it 
is impossible to determine given the vague and broad nature of the description. Finally, the 
Strategic Planning category included broad and general descriptions of what may be executive 
responsibilities. However, nothing in the description provides any insight into what specific 
tasks the beneficiary would perform with respect to his planning responsibilities. The 
description is especially curious since the petitioner as~erts that the beneficiary owns all of the 
stock and is the sole director of the corporation. Presumably any duties relating to discussions, 
reports, and reviews to the board of directors would be abbreviated . Reciting the beneficiary's 
vague job responsibilities or broadly-cast business objectives is not sufficient; the regulations 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
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 .. Lrd. 
v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Given the 
inadequacy of the position descriptions provided, the record does not support a finding that the 
beneficiary would be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
r · 
The AAO recognizes that the director limited her decision to a discussion of the beneficiary ' s 
lack of oversight of professional or supervisory employees, but concurs with the director's 
ultimate conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary ,..,·ould be employed 
in a managerial or executive capacity. ln her decision, the director reviewed the organizational 
structure of the company. She recognized that three employees other than the beneficiary were 
employed with the U.S. company. She did not find multiple levels ()f supervision within the 
company but she did find inconsistencies in the record. The petiti011er asserted that all three 
employees were full-time staff. working a minimum of 40 hours per week. Despite that claim, 
the petitioner provided a job description for the assistant/secretary that included duties 
amounting to only seven hour s per week and failed to include any time allocation for dut ics 
assigned to the warehouse manager. Furthe,more, and as pointed out in detail by the director, 
the petitioner's state and federal quarterly returns do not support the assertion that all employees 
were working on a full-time basis. 
On appeal. counsel asserts 'that "the distinction between full-time employees and part-time 
employees cannot be at issue" bec:ause the statutory definitions of managerial and executive 
capacity make no such distinction, and because "an executive docs not need a single employee 
{full-time or part-time) to be considered an executive." While it is true that there is no specific 
requirement that a petitioner must employ full -time workers. it is expected that a petitioner will 
provide users with accurate information supported by corroborating documentai·y evidence. 
Therefore, if the petitioner claims that all of its workers are employed on a full-time basis, it is 
reasonable to expect the petitioner's payroll records to reflect payments commcn~uratc with full­
time employment of all workers. · 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 (B lA 1988). 
Counsel makes no effort to explain the discrepancies noted by the director. 
Counsel also does not object to the director's finding that the beneficiary will not be supervising 
managerial or professional employees, and instead claims that the beneficiary will be employed 
in an executive capacity. 
The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's elevated position 
within a complex organizational hierarchy, including major components or functions of the 
organization, and that person's authority to direct the organization. Section 10l(a)(44)(8) of the 
Act , 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(8) . Under the statute, a beneficiary must have the ability to "direct 
the management" and "establish the goals and policies" of that organization. Inherent to the 
(b)(6)
Page 9 
definition: the organization must have a subordinate level of managerial employees for the 
beneficiary to direct and the beneficiary must primarily focus on the broad goals and policies of 
the organization rather than the day-to-day operations of the enterprise. An individual will not 
be deemed an executive under the statute simply because they have an executive title or because 
they "direct" the enterprise as the owner or sole managerial employee . The beneficiary must also 
exercise "wide latitude in discretionary decision making" and receive only "general supervision 
or direction from higher level executives, the board of directors,. or stockholders of the 
organization." ·I d. While it is accurate to state that the definition of "executive capacity" does 
not specifically reference a requirement that the executive supervise subordinate employees. the 
petitioner must still establish that someone, other than the beneficiary, is available to perform the 
vast majority of the non-qualifying duties associated with operating-the petitioner's business. 
In this matter, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary would have the ability to 
focus on the broad goals and polices of the organization rather that the day-to-day operations of 
the enterprise. Counsel asset1s in his brief that the general operation manager reports to the 
beneficiary and supervises the other two employees suggesting that although small, the staff is 
organized in such a way to relieve the beneficiary of the day-to-day operatipns . Nevertheless, / 
the record does not support such a conclusion. While the beneficiary's job description includes 
responsibility for the management of employees, the operation manager's job description does 
not. In addition, counsel asserts in his brief that the beneficiary has been making all of the 
financial and operational decisions and he is also the person who "makes all the negotiations 
with the corporation's clients." The petitioner does not explain how much time the beneficiary 
will spend on these non-qualifying duties or any other non-qualifying duties. 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 
I01(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 bun'L., 19 I&N Dec: 593, 
604 (Comm'r 1988). Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary will be 
employed primarily in an executive capacity. 
Counsel correctly observes that a company's size alone, without taking into account the 
reasonable needs of the organization, may not be the determining factor in denying a visa to a 
multinational manager or executive. See§ 10l(a)(44)(C) of the Act, .8 U.S.C. § IIOI(a)(44)(C) . 
. However, it is appropriate for USCIS to . consider the size of the petitioning company in 
conjunction with other relevant factors, such as a company's small personnel size, the absence of 
employees who would perform the non-managerial or non-executive operations of the company, 
or a "shell company" that does not conduct business in a regular and continuous manner. See . . 
e.g. Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313 (9thCir. 2006); Systronics Corp. v. INS. 153.F. Supp. 
2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001 ). The size of a company maybe especially relevant when USCIS notes 
discrepancies in the record and fails to believe that the facts asserted are true. See Syslrmzics, 153 
F. Supp. 2d at ~ 5. · 
Based on the petitioner's represent~nions,' it does not appear that the reasonable needs of the 
petitioning company might plausibly be met by the services of the.· beneficiary as president, an 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
operations manager, a part-time secretary and a warehouse manager. The petitioner indicates 
that the beneficiary will be directly involved · in sales and marketing activi.ties and has not 
identified who will perform certain non-qualifying functions of the. company, such as purchasing 
and bookkeeping. 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 benefi~iary is to be employed in the United 
States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity, pursuant to sections 10l(a)(44)(A) and 
(B) or the Act As discussed above, the petitioner has not established this essential element of 
eligibility based on its failure to provide a detailed description of the beneficiary's proposed 
duties. \ 
The AAO acknowledges the petitioner's claim that the beneficiary would hire up to five 
additional employees in the "near future." However, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the 
time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner or beneficiary 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Katigbak, 14 l&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 
1971 ). 
Based on the foregoing discussion, the petitioner has not established· that the beneficiary would 
be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
III. Qualifying Relationship 
Beyond the director's decision it is noted that the petitioner has not established that it has a 
qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's 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 genera !I.), 
§ 203(b)(l )(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153{b)(1)(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 th~s visa classification. Mat~er of Church Scientology 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (Comm'r 1988); see also Matter of Siemens Medical Systems , 
Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (Comm'r 1986); Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 (Comm'r I 98:2). 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. 
As general evidence of a petitioner's claimed qualifying relationship, stock certificates alone are 
not sufficient evidence to determine whether a stockholder maintains ownership and control of a 
corporate entity. The corporate stock certificate ledger, stock certificate registry, corporate 
(b)(6)
Page II 
bylaws, and the minutes of relevant annual shareholder meetings must also be examined to 
determine the total number of shares issued, the exact number issuedto the 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., supra. Without full disclosure of all 
relevant documents, USCIS is unable to determine the elements of ownership and control. 
In this matter, the petitioner indicates that it is a s1ubsidiary of the foreign entity, but. according to 
the petitioner's articles. of incorporation, the beneficiary owns I 00 percellt of th~ pet it ioncr's 
shares. 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. The petitioner has not submitted copies of the 
. petitioner's stock certificates or other documentary evidence to estabhsh who actually owns the 
company. Going on record without supporting documentary 'evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sojfici, 22 I&N Dec. at 
165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)). 
If the beneficiary is actually the owner of the petitioning company, then the petitioner would 
need to provide evidence that he also owns at least a majority interest in the foreign entity in 
order to establish a qualifying affiliate relationship. The petitioner has not submitted adequate 
evidence of the ownership of. the foreign entity. The petitioner submitted articles of 
incorporation for the foreign corporation and meeting minutes in order to establish that the 
beneficiary is the sole shareholder of the foreign corporation. However, the documents are 
written in Spanish and the offered translations have not been signed or ce11ified as true and 
accurate by the translator. Because the petitioner failed to submit certified trans_lations of the 
documents, the AAO cannot determine whether the evidence supports the petitioner's claims. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Accordingly, the evidence is not probative and will not be accorded 
any weight in this proceeding. 
Notably, even if the documents were considered, there are unexplained inconsistencies within the 
documents regarding the number of authorized shares and the number of shares issued. No other 
documents were provided to establish ownership and control of the foreign company in order to 
establish its relationship to the U.S. company. 
Based on the foregoing, the record do·es not support the petitioner's claim that it is a subsidinry of 
the foreign entity , nor has the petitioner established the existence of an affiliate rehllionship 
between the two entities. 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 I 025, 1"043 
(b)(6)
Page 12 
(E.D. Cal. 2001), affd . 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltanev. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 
(3d Cir . 2004)(noting that the AAO reviews appeals , on a de novo basis). 
IV. Conclusion 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for 
the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U .S.C. * 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed