dismissed EB-1C Case: Leather Goods Wholesale

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
;<p$ 
$ 
$&% 
# *\ 
-- rb ,,, f 
FILE: WAC 02 279 54492 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: FEB 0 7 m5 
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: 
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, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 02 279 54492 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California service Center, denied the employment-based petition. The matter 
is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner is a corporation initially organized in the State of California in June 1997. It imports and 
wholesales leather goods. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its 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. 3 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or 
manager. 
The director determined that the petitioner had not established: (1) a qualifying relationship with the 
beneficiary's foreign employer; or, (2) that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive 
capacity for the United States entity. 
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." 
On the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal, filed on October 20,2003, counsel for the petitioner indicated that a brief 
andlor evidence would be sent to the AAO within 30 days. To date, careful review of the record reveals no 
subsequent submission; all other documentation in the record predates the issuance of the notice of decision. 
In a statement attached to the I-290B, counsel for the petitioner states: 
The decision by the Director denying beneficiary status as a multi-national executivelmanager is 
erroneous. The Director states that the "petitioner has not established through the submission of 
independent objective evidence that the beneficiary will truly be performing as a manager or 
executive, for immigration purposes." That statement simply ignores the fact that petitioner has 
sufficient other employees to handle day-to-day non-supervisory duties. Beneficiary's primary 
duties are executive or managerial in nature. See Commentary, 52 Fed. Reg. 5738,5739 (Feb. 
26, 1987). 
The Director states that "[flor immigration purposes, the issuance of a piece of paper titled 'stock 
certificate' is not conclusory as to whether a qualifying relationship exists between a petitioner 
and a foreign company. No cite is provided for this statement. Yet California law is quite clear. 
The face of the stock certificate is evidence of the ownership of the shares represented by it. 
California Corporations Code, Section 133. 
Counsel for the petitioner does not address the director's determinations that: (1) the beneficiary's job 
description did not establish that the beneficiary performed primarily in an executive capacity; (2) the 
petitioner employed only the beneficiary and an office manager full-time and two employees part-time and 
that it was reasonable to believe that with the petitioner's organizational structure, the beneficiary would assist 
with the day-to-day non-supervisory duties; (3) the beneficiary. did not qualify as a manager because his 
WAC 02 279 54492 
Page 3 
position would not be over subordinate managers or professional employees; and, (4) the beneficiary would 
be performing routine operational duties rather than managing a function of the business. 
Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's 
burden of proof. The assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 
533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter Of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N 
Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Although inarticulately stated the director determined that the record did not 
support the petitioner's representations that its reasonable needs might plausibly be met by the services of the 
beneficiary as president, an office manager and two part-time employees. Counsel, on appeal, does not 
specifically explain and support the implied assertion that the beneficiary is relieved from performing 
primarily non-qualifying duties. 
In addition, counsel does not address the director's determination that the petitioner has not established 
ownership and control of the U.S. entity. The regulations specifically allow the director to request additional 
evidence in appropriate cases. See C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(ii). As ownership is a critical element of this visa 
classification, the director may reasonably inquire beyond the issuance of paper stock certificates into the 
means by which stock ownership was acquired. As requested by the director, evidence of this nature should 
include documentation of monies, property, or other consideration furnished to the entity in exchange for 
stock ownership. Additional supporting evidence would include stock purchase agreements, subscription 
agreements, corporate by-laws, minutes of relevant shareholder meetings, or other legal documents governing 
the acquisition of the ownership interest. In this matter, the director identified inconsistencies and 
embellishments in the record. Neither counsel nor the petitioner have clarified the inconsistencies or 
explained the embellished statements. If Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) fails to believe that a 
fact stated in the petition is true, CIS may reject that fact. Section 204(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1154(b); see 
also Anetekhai v. I.N.S., 876 F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th (3.1989); Lu-Ann Bakery Shop, Inc. v. Nelson, 705 F. 
Supp. 7, 10 (D.D.C. 1988); Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). 
Inasmuch as counsel's statements on appeal do not identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a 
statement of fact as a basis for the appeal; the regulations mandate the summary dismissal of the appeal. 
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. 3 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.