dismissed EB-1C Case: Interior Design

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarr~nted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
DATE: 
JUN 22 20\1 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529·2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigrationn 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b )(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)( I )(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perty Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.ulcb.gov 
-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 marketing director. 
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. § I I 53(b)(l)(C), as a 
multinational executive or manager. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the record lacks evidence establishing that the petitioner had 
been doing business in the United States for one year prior to filing pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.50)(3)(i)(0). 
On appeal, the beneficiary disputes the director's conclusion and states that a brief andlor additional 
infonnation would be submitted within 30 days of the appeal. The beneficiary claims that she is attaching 
evidence to establish that the petitioner has been doing business since 2005. It is noted that there is no 
evidence to indicate that the record has been supplemented in any way since the date the appeal was filed. 
Accordingly, the record will be considered complete as presently constituted. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(I) 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 I year 
by a finn 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 primary issue to be addressed in this decision is whether the petitioner had been doing business for at least 
one year prior to the date it filed the Fonn 1-140. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.50)(2) states that doing business means "the regular, systematic, and continuous 
provision of goods andlor services by a finn, corporation, or other entity and does not include the mere presence 
of an agent or office." 
In the present matter, the only documentation submitted initially in support of the petition included evidence 
of the petitioner's corporate existence as of January 26, 2009, the petitioner's application for a federal tax 
identification 1I11IIlUt:r, and the petitioner's articles of amendment showing that the petitioner's name was 
changed to 
Accordingly, in a decision dated May 19, 2009, the director denied the petition, concluding that the above 
documentation does not establish that the petitioner had been doing business for one year prior to March 16, 
2009, the date the instant Form 1-140 was filed. 
~ 
Page 3 
On appeal, the petitioner provides corporate documents establishing the petitioner's corporate existence and 
the issuance of shares, an untranslated i I eceipt dated March 18, 2006, and a receipt for payment 
of a local tax covering a one-year term from October 1,2007 through September 30,2008. Additionally, the 
beneficiary submits a notarized affidavit containing her address, date of birth, and alien registration number. 
The AAO finds that the above submissions are not sufficient to overcome the basis for denial. First, with 
regard to the petitioner's corporate documents, evidence of an entity's corporate existence does not establish 
that business has been conducted on a "regular, systematic, and continuous" basis. Although the petitioner has 
claimed that it operates as an interior design company, no invoices have been submitted to establish the 
petitioner's purchase of merchandise or sale of its services. A single untranslated receipt from the IS 
not insufficient. The AAO further notes that 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) requires that any foreign language 
document must be accompanied by a certified English language translation. As the petitioner failed to submit 
certified a translation of the store receipt, the AAO cannot determine whether the evidence supports the 
petitioner'S claims. 
In summary, the petitioner has submitted minimal documentation to support its claim and therefore has failed 
to establish that the petitioner meets the regulatory criteria specified at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5G)(3)(i)(D). Therefore, 
the instant petition cannot be approved on the basis of this initial conclusion. 
Additionally, while not addressed in the director's decision, the AAO finds that the record lacks evidence to 
establish that the petitioner meets the regulatory criteria discussed at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5G)(3)(i)(B), (C), and 
204.5G)(5). 
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 identity 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), ajj'd, 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DO], 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
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. Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identity 
specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in this proceeding, the petitioner has not 
sustained that burden. Therefore, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dism issed.