dismissed EB-1C Case: International Trade

U.S. Department of Ilomeland Security 
4 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
identifiing data deleted to 
 office of Administrative Appeals, MS 2090 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
invasion of personal privacy 
 U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBL~C COP 
File: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: J" L 2 8 2009 
LIN 07 090 53556 
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. 5 1153(b)(l)(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 or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
t; ohn &&* F. G ssom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based visa petition. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner filed the immigrant visa petition to classify the beneficiary as a multinational manager or 
executive pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act), 8 U.S.C. 
5 1153(b)(l)(C). The petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York that 
claims to be engaging in the international trade of textile products, office products and software 
products. The petitioner claims to be a wholly owned subsidiary of Nanjing New World Textile Co. 
Ltd. (the Parent Company), located in Nanjing, China, and seeks to employ the beneficiary as its 
president. 
The director denied the petition on July 29, 2008, determining that the petitioner had not established 
that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity by the United States 
entity. The director noted that the petitioner had failed to respond fully to the request for evidence 
(WE) issued by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) subsequent to the 
petitioner's initial filing of the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. In his decision, 
the director listed the information requested in the WE, extensively quoted or summarized the 
petitioner's response, and noted that "the record lacked sufficient information to indicate what 
specific duties the beneficiary would primarily be performing. As such, [USCIS] cannot 
affirmatively conclude that the beneficiary would primarily perform managerial or executive duties." 
The director further found the record shows that the majority of the beneficiary's duties have been 
and will be directly providing the services of the business. In addition, the director noted, the 
petitioner has not shown that the beneficiary will be primarily supervising a subordinate staff of 
professional, managerial or supervisory employees who will relieve him from performing non- 
qualifying duties; that the petitioner has reached or will reach a level of organizational complexity 
wherein the hiringlfiring of personnel, discretionary decision-making, and setting company goals or 
policies would be significant components of the beneficiary's job responsibilities; or that the 
beneficiary manages an essential function of the organization. Therefore, the director concluded, 
based on the evidence furnished, it cannot be found that the beneficiary has been or will be 
employed primarily in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
On the Form I-290B Notice of Appeal, filed on August 25, 2008, the petitioner states: 
The Service requested additional in formation from the petitioner on 05/07/2008. The 
petitioner submitted all the information requested, included the detailed response to 
every request. 
However, the Service issued us a denial decision on 07/28/2008, and the Decision 
stated that the petitioner failed to submit complete evidence as requested by the 
Service. 
Page 3 
Further, the Service did not explain how and why it consider[ed] the information 
submitted by the petitioner is partial. 
The petitioner stated no other reason for appeal. As the petitioner indicated on the Form I-290B, no 
brief or additional evidence has been submitted on appeal. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. §103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part: "An officer to whom an appeal is 
taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party concerned fails to identify specifically any 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal." 
The AAO concurs with the director's conclusion that the record does not demonstrate that the 
beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity in the United States. 
As noted above, in his decision, the director discussed at some length the content of the RFE and the 
petitioner's response to it before concluding that the record fails to establish that the beneficiary 
meets the qualifications for the benefit sought. As such, the petitioner has failed to identify an 
erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in the director's decision as a basis for the appeal. 
Thus, the regulations mandate the summary dismissal of the appeal. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the AAO finds the evidence is insufficient to establish that the 
petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. In order to qualify 
for this visa classification, the petitioner must establish that a qualifying relationship exists between the 
United States and foreign entities in that the petitioning company is the same employer or an affiliate or 
subsidiary of the foreign entity. See section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act. 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 U.S. 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 (Cornrn. 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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.56)(2) states in pertinent part: 
AfJiliate means: 
(A) 
 One of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled by the same 
parent or individual; 
(B) 
 One of two legal entities owned and controlled by the same group of 
individuals, each individual owning and controlling approximately the same 
share or proportion of each entity. 
Multinational means that the qualifying entity, or its affiliate, or subsidiary, conducts 
business in two or more countries, one of which is the United States. 
Subsidiary means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity of which a parent owns, 
directly or indirectly, more than half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, 
directly or indirectly, half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, directly or 
indirectly, 50 percent of a 50-50 joint venture and has equal control and veto power 
over the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, less than half of the entity, but in fact 
controls the entity. 
In this matter, the record contains a material inconsistency regarding the ownership and control of 
the U.S. company. In a letter dated February 1, 2007, the petitioner claimed that the U.S. company 
is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Parent Company, which employed the beneficiary from January 
2001 through December 2004. The petitioner submitted copies of its stock certificates number 1 
through 20. Certificate number 1, dated December 10, 2004, shows the Parent Company as the 
owner of 200 shares of the U.S. company's common stock, representing all of the authorized shares 
of the company. Certificates number 2 through 20 are blank. However, the petitioner also submitted 
its Internal Revenue Service Forms 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, for the years 2004, 
2005, and 2006, Schedules E of which show that during those years, rather than being 100% owned 
by the Parent Company as the petitioner claimed, the U.S. company was 90% owned by the 
beneficiary and 10% owned by, the named vice president of the U.S. company. 
In light of the above information, the record does not show conclusively that the U.S. company is a 
wholly owned subsidiary of the foreign entity, as the petitioner claimed. The record lacks any 
documentation or explanation that would reconcile or clarify this discrepancy regarding the 
ownership of the U.S. company. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in 
the record by independent objective evidence. 
 Any attempt to explain or reconcile such 
inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing 
to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 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. at 591. 
In light of the above, the AAO finds the petitioner has also failed to establish that there exists a 
qualifying relationship between the U.S. company and the beneficiary's foreign employer. 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. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), 
afd. 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 it is shown that the AAO abused-its 
Page 5 
discretion with respect to all of the AAO's enumerated grounds. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United 
States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043. 
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. 5 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.