dismissed EB-1C Case: International Trade

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: FEB 0 7 
EAC 98 1 19 54429 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, ~irecthr 
+I 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was approved in August 1998. On February 19, 2003 the 
Director, California Service Center, revoked approval of the visa petition. The matter came before the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal, which was dismissed in a decision dated November 21, 
2003. The matter is now before the AAO on motion to reopen. The motion will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a California business engaged in international trade. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its 
executive vice-president. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an employment- 
based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
5 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. The director determined that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary had been and would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. The 
director also determined that the petitioner does not have the ability to pay the beneficiary's proffered annual 
wage of $3 1,200. 
The petitioner appealed the denial disputing the director's findings. The AAO restated the petitioner's 
descriptions of the beneficiary's job duties, analyzed the petitioner's claimed hierarchical structure, and 
discussed the petitioner's various tax information. Based on the petitioner's submissions, the AAO noted that 
the petitioner failed to submit sufficient position descriptions for the beneficiary and his subordinates and 
concluded that the petitioner lacked a sufficient support staff to allow the beneficiary to primarily perform 
managerial or executive duties. The AAO also determined that the petitioner must establish its ability to pay 
the beneficiary's proffered wage at the time the petition is filed, not when the beneficiary's adjustment 
application is approved. Accordingly, the AAO concluded, based on the relevant tax documentation on 
record, that the petitioner lacked sufficient funds to pay the beneficiary's salary. 
On motion to reopen, counsel submits a brief describing the nature of the petitioner's business and the general 
job duties of the beneficiary. Counsel also questions CIS'S reliance on the size of the petitioner's staff in 
determining the beneficiary's eligibility for classification as an L-1A manager or executive. In regard to the 
petitioner's ability to pay the beneficiary's proffered wage, counsel asserts that a portion of that salary was 
provided by the parent entity. While counsel's claim suggests that the beneficiary was compensated his total 
proffered wage, he clearly states that the petitioner is incapable of providing that entire amount on its own, 
without the assistance of the foreign entity. However, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(g)(2) specifically 
requires the petitioner to demonstrate its own ability to compensate the beneficiary. Showing that another entity, 
aside fkom the petitioner itself, is contributing to the beneficiary's proffered wage does not satisfy the petitioner's 
regulatory requirement. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(2) state, in pertinent part, that a motion to reopen must state the new 
facts to be provided in the reopened proceeding and be supported by affidavits or other documentary 
evidence. 
In the instant case, the petitioner has had its opportunity to describe the beneficiary's job duties and 
organizational structure. Therefore, the additional description of duties cannot be considered as new facts 
sufficient to meet the requirements of a motion to reopen pursuant to the above regulation. Although the 
petitioner had not previously revealed the foreign entity's role in contributing to the beneficiary's salary, this 
cannot be considered new evidence merely because the petitioner chose not to reveal this information prior to 
filing its motion. 
Page 3 
The petitioner's submissions do not meet the requirements for a motion to reopen. Therefore, the motion will 
be dismissed in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(4), which states, in pertinent part, that a motion that does 
not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 
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. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.