dismissed EB-1C Case: Retail

PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U. S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
20MassachusettsAve.N.W.,MS2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
8 U.S.Citizenship
andImmigration
Services
DATE: M 0 0 20ÍŽ OFFICE:TEXASSERVICECENTER
IN RE:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionforAlienWorkerasaMultinationalExecutiveorManagerPursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C)
ON BEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase.All of thedocuments
relatedtothismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyour case.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believe the AAO inappropriatelyappliedthe law in reachingits decision,or you have additional
information that you wish to have considered,you may file a motion to reconsideror a motion to reopenwith
thefieldofficeor servicecenterthatoriginallydecidedyourcaseby filing a FormI-290B,Noticeof Appeal
or Motion,with a feeof $630. Thespecificrequirementsfor filing sucha motioncanbefoundat 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.5.Do not file any motion directly with the AAO. Pleasebeawarethat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)
requiresanymotiontobefiledwithin 30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseekstoreconsiderorreopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION:Thepreferencevisapetitionwasdeniedby theDirector,TexasServiceCenter.Thematteris
nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)onappeal.Theappealwill bedismissed.
ThepetitionerisaTexasentitythatseekstoemploythebeneficiaryasitspresident/director.Accordingly,the
petitionerendeavorsto classifythe beneficiaryas an employment-basedimmigrantpursuantto section
203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C),asa multinational
executiveormanager.
In supportof theFormI-140thepetitionersubmittedthefollowing: 1)two bankstatements;2) anassumed
namecertificatefiled by two partnersin a generalpartnership(of whichthebeneficiarywasnamedasone
partner)seekingto use e assumedname;3) a dealer'ssuretybonddocumentdated
January29,2004issuedto 4)a retaillicenseissuedto >nMarch 18,
2004;and5) a statement,datedApril 21, 2003,from authorizingthe subleaseof the
propertylocatedat theaddressthatwasidentifiedontheFormI-140asthelocationwhere
thebeneficiary'sproposedemploymentwouldtakeplace.
Thedirectorreviewedthepetitioner'ssubmissionsanddeterminedthatthepetitiondid notwarrantapproval.
Thedirectorthereforeissueda requestfor additionalevidence(RFE)datedFebruary22,2005informingthe
petitionerof variousevidentiarydeficiencies.Thedirectorinstructedthepetitionerto providecorporate,tax,
and businessdocuments,as well as informationpertainingto the beneficiary'sforeignand proposed
employment.Thedirectoralsoaskedthepetitionerto includeall four 2004quarterlywagereportsin its
responsetotheRFE.
In response,thepetitionerprovideda statementdatedMay 19,2005listingthedocumentsthatwererequested
in the RFE andan unsignedstatementdatedMay 15, 2005on the foreignentity's letterheadwith the
beneficiary'snameprintedat thesignatureline. Thestatementlistedthepetitioner'semployees,claiming
seventotal, andprovidedthe petitioner'sorganizationalchart,showinga salesandmarketingmanager,a
procurementmanager,andan office manageras thebeneficiary'sdirectsubordinates.Thepetitioneralso
providedanassumednamefiling certificatedatedMarch7, 2005showingthatthepetitionerwouldbedoing
business as . Although the beneficiary, in the statement that was written on the foreign
entity's letterhead, stated that a description of the proposed employment were provided within, the only
information the beneficiary provided regarding the proposed employment was to state that he has been
assignedthe position of president of the petitioning entity, which will require him to assumethe
responsibilitiesof conception,planning,financing,andexecutionof all businessactivities.Thepetitionerdid
notprovidealist of thebeneficiary'sjob duties,thetimeeachdutywouldconsume,or thejob descriptionsof
thebeneficiary'ssubordinates.Thepetitioneralsofailedto providetherequestedquarterlytax returnsfor
2004.
Thepetitionerdid,however,provideacopyof itsorganizationalchartlistingatotalof sevenemployees,three
of whom-an officemanager,a procurementmanager,anda marketingandsalesmanager-weredepictedas
thebeneficiary'sthreedirectsubordinates.It is notedthat in theMay 15,2005statementthebeneficiary
referredto a claimingthatsevenemployees,includingthebeneficiaryhimself,reportto this
individual. However,the petitioner'sorganizationalchartdid not includea as part of the
petitioner'sorganizationalhierarchy.Rather, is depictedin theforeignentity'sorganizational
chartaschairmanof thatentity.
Page3
Thepetitioner'sresponsealsoincludedtwo assumednamedocuments.Onedocumentwasthepetitioner's
owncertificate,showingthatcommencingonMarch7, 2005,thepetitionerwasauthorizedto usethename
" Theotherdocumentappliedto thegeneralpartnershipin whichthebeneficiarywas
namedas oneof the partners. The latterdocumentindicatedthat commencingon January15,2003the
generalpartnershipwasauthorizedto do businessas(DBA) ' ' andthatthebusinesswas
locatedat6, Dallas,Texas.Thepetitionerprovidedthegeneralpartnership'sTexassalestax
return,signedonMarch17,2005,showingthatthepartnershipcontinuedto existanddobusinessunderits
DBA name,evenafterthepetitionerwasauthorizedto operateunderanalmostidenticalname. TheAAO
pointsoutagainthattheDBA documentthatpertainsto thepartnershipshowsthesamebusinessaddressas
theoneshownontheFormI-140astheaddresswherethebeneficiarywouldassumehisproposedposition
with thepetitioningentity. It thereforeappearsthatthegeneralpartnershipandthepetitioningentity,which
havenotbeenestablishedasbeingoneandthesame,operatedat thesamepropertyaddress.
Afterreviewingtherecord,thedirectorconcludedthatthepetitionerfailedto establisheligibilityandissueda
decisiondatedAugust17,2009denyingthepetition. Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionerfailedto
establishthatthebeneficiarywouldbeemployedin a qualifyingmanagerialor executivecapacityor thatthe
petitioneritself hasbeendoing businessin the United Statesand submittedinconsistentandunreliable
evidenceto supportits claims. ThedirectorstatedthatU.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)
contactedoneof theindividualswhowasnamedonthepetitioner'sorganizationalchartasanemployeeand
thattheindividualdeniedhavingeverbeenemployedby thepetitioner.Thedirectoralsoconcludedthatthe
petitionerfailedto establishthatit is currentlydoingbusinessin theUnitedStates.
On appeal,counselsubmitsa brief addressingthe director'sconcerns.Counseldisputesthe groundsfor
denialandoffersadditionalsupportingevidenceto resolvecertaininconsistencies.
TheAAO finds thatneithercounsel'sassertionsnor the additionaldocumentsprovidedarepersuasivein
overcomingthedirector'sdecision.It is notedthatthepetitioner'ssubmissionshavebeenreviewedandwill
beaddressedin thediscussionbelow.
Section 203(b) of the Act statesin pertinent part:
(1) PriorityWorkers.-- Visasshallfirst bemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswho
arealiensdescribedin anyof thefollowingsubparagraphs(A) through(C):
(C)CertainMultinationalExecutivesandManagers.-- An alienis described
in this subparagraphif the alien,in the 3 yearsprecedingthe time of the
alien'sapplicationfor classificationand admissioninto the United States
underthissubparagraph,hasbeenemployedfor at least1yearby a firm or
corporationor otherlegalentityor anaffiliateor subsidiarythereofandwho
seeksto entertheUnitedStatesin orderto continueto renderservicesto the
sameemployeror to a subsidiaryor affiliate thereofin a capacitythat is
managerialorexecutive.
Page4
Thelanguageof thestatuteis specificin limiting thisprovisionto only thoseexecutivesandmanagerswho
havepreviouslyworkedfor a firm,corporationor otherlegalentity,or anaffiliateor subsidiaryof thatentity,
andwhoarecomingto theUnitedStatestoworkforthesameentity,or itsaffiliateor subsidiary.
A United Statesemployermay file a petitionon Form I-140 for classificationof an alienundersection
203(b)(1)(C)of theAct asa multinationalexecutiveor manager.No laborcertificationis requiredfor this
classification.Theprospectiveemployerin the UnitedStatesmustfurnisha job offer in the form of a
statementwhichindicatesthatthealienis to beemployedin theUnitedStatesin a managerialor executive
capacity.Suchastatementmustclearlydescribethedutiestobeperformedbythealien.
First,theAAO will addresstheissueof thebeneficiary'semploymentcapacityin hisproposedpositionwith
thepetitioningU.S.entity. Specifically,theAAO will examinetherecordto determinewhetherthepetitioner
submittedsufficientevidenceto establishthat it would employthe beneficiaryin the UnitedStatesin a
qualifyingmanagerialorexecutivecapacity.
Section101(a)(44)(A)of theAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(44)(A),provides:
The term "managerialcapacity"meansan assignmentwithin an organizationin which the
employeeprimarily-
(i) managesthe organization,or a department,subdivision,function, or
componentof theorganization;
(ii) supervisesand controlsthe work of other supervisory,professional,or
managerialemployees,or managesan essentialfunction within the
organization,oradepartmentor subdivisionof theorganization;
(iii) if anotheremployeeor otheremployeesare directly supervised,hasthe
authorityto hire and fire or recommendthoseas well as otherpersonnel
actions(suchaspromotionandleaveauthorization),or if nootheremployee
is directly supervised, functions at a senior level within the organizational
hierarchy or with respectto the function managed;and
(iv) exercisesdiscretion over the day-to-day operationsof theactivity or function
for which the employeehas authority. A first-line supervisoris not
consideredto be actingin a managerialcapacitymerelyby virtue of the
supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are
professional.
Section101(a)(44)(B)of theAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(44)(B),provides:
The term "executivecapacity"meansan assignmentwithin an organizationin which the
employeeprimarily--
(i) directsthemanagementof theorganizationoramajorcomponentor function
of theorganization;
Page5
(ii) establishesthe goals and policies of the organization,component,or
function;
(iii) exerciseswidelatitudein discretionarydecision-making;and
(iv) receivesonly generalsupervisionor directionfrom higherlevelexecutives,
theboardof directors,orstockholdersof theorganization.
As apreliminarymatter,theAAO notesthattherecordcontainsnumerousdocumentspertainingto a general
partnership( j in whichthebeneficiarywasnamedasoneof two partners.Thesedocuments
are not probative,as theydo not pertainto the petitioningentity or the beneficiary'sproposedposition
therein. Therefore,unlessthosedocumentsthatpertainto thepartnershipdirectlyaffectthematterof the
beneficiary'sproposedemploymentor thepetitioner'seligibility,theywill bedeemedirrelevantandthuswill
notbeaddressed.
The AAO will, however,review the descriptionof the proposedemploymentas a primary basisfor
determiningwhetherthebeneficiarywouldbeemployedin anexecutiveor managerialcapacity.See8C.F.R.
§ 204.5(j)(5).Publishedcaselaw clearlysupportsthepivotalroleof a detailedjob description,astheactual
dutiesthemselvesrevealthetruenatureof theemployment.FedinBros.Co.,Ltd. v.Sava,724F. Supp.1103,
1108(E.D.N.Y.1989),affd, 905F.2d41(2d.Cir. 1990);seealso8C.F.R.§204.5(j)(5).TheAAO will then
considerthelist of proposedjob dutiesin light of thepetitioner'sorganizationalhierarchy,thebeneficiary's
positiontherein,andthepetitioner'soverallabilitytorelievethebeneficiaryfromhavingtoprimarilyperform
thedailyoperationaltasksof thebusiness.
The petitionerfailed to providerelevantand critical evidencethat directly pertainsto the beneficiary's
proposedemployment,despitethe director'sexpressrequestin the RFE. Failureto submitrequested
evidencethat precludesa materialline of inquiry shall be groundsfor denyingthe petition.8C.F.R.§
103.2(b)(14).Thesupplementalinformationthat counselofferson appealis not sufficientin light of the
petitioner'sfailureto complywith the director'sprior RFE request. Without documentaryevidenceto
supporttheclaim,theassertionsof counselwill notsatisfythepetitioner'sburdenof proof. Theunsupported
assertionsof counseldonot constituteevidence.Matterof Obaigbena,19I&N Dec.533,534(BIA 1988);
Matter of Laureano,19I&N Dec.1 (BIA 1983);Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez,17I&N Dec.503,506(BIA
1980). Moreover,as the petitionerwas put on notice of requiredevidenceand given a reasonable
opportunityto provideit for therecordbeforethevisapetitionwasadjudicated,theAAO will notconsider
thenewlyofferedstatementsfor anypurpose.SeeMatterofSoriano,19I&N Dec.764(BIA 1988);Matterof
Obaigbena,19I&N Dec.533. Theappealwill beadjudicatedbasedontherecordof proceedingbeforethe
director.
While counselis correctin pointing out that the petitioner'seligibility cannothingeon the size of the
petitioningorganization,federalcourtshave generallyagreedthat USCIS "may properly consideran
organization'ssmallsizeasonefactorin assessingwhetheritsoperationsaresubstantialenoughto supporta
manager."Family,Inc. v. U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices,469F.3d1313,1316(9thCir. 2006)
(citingwith approvalRepublicof Transkeiv.INS,923F.2d 175,178(D.C.Cir. 1991);FedinBros.Co.v.
Sava,905F.2d41,42 (2dCir. 1990)(percuriam);Q Data Consulting,Inc. v. INS,293F. Supp.2d 25,29
(D.D.C.2003). Whilethepetitioner'sorganizationalchartandsupportingstatementsmayindicatethatthe
beneficiarywouldassumethetop-mostpositionwithinthepetitioningentity'sorganization,thisinformation,
Page6
withoutfurthersupportingdocumentaryevidence,is insufficientto establishthattheproposedemployment
wouldconsistprimarilyof managerial-or executive-leveltasks.Thefactthatanindividualmanagesa small
businessdoesnot necessarilyestablishthat theemploymentfits the definitionof managerialor executive
capacitywithinthemeaningof section101(a)(44)of theAct.
The petitionerhasprovidedno supportingevidenceto corroboratethe organizationalhierarchythat was
illustratedin the organizationalchart. As notedpreviously,thepetitionerfailedto providethe requested
quarterlytaxreturnsfor2004,whichwouldhaveclarifiedthestaffingthepetitionerhadin placeatthetimeof
filing thepetition.Goingonrecordwithoutsupportingdocumentaryevidenceis notsufficientfor purposesof
meetingtheburdenof proofin theseproceedings.MatterofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec.158,165(Comm.1998)
(citingMatterof TreasureCraftof California,14I&N Dec.190(Reg.Comm.1972)).
Oneof the documentsthatthepetitionersubmittedon appealto explainandreconcilea previouslynoted
inconsistencydealingwith the allegedemploymentof is not credible. Specifically,in an
affidavit datedSeptember13, 2009, indicatedthat he worked for the petitioneron a
commissionbasisfora periodof ninemonthsin 2004butthathedidnotearnanycommission.In reviewing
the organizationalchartthat thepetitionerprovidedin responseto the RFE, it is notedthat one of the
employees-anoutdoorsalesman-wasexpresslyidentifiedasa commission-basedemployee.TheAAO
notesthatthepetitionerdid notsimilarlyidenti theallegedprocurementmanager,asbeing
a commission-basedemployee.In fact, wasdepictedas a managerwith onesubordinate
employee,thusleadingto thelogicalconclusionthat ositionwasnotoneof sales,butrather,
thatthepositionwassupervisoryto someextent. Theclaimthat performedtasksthatwould
justify a commission-onlyform of compensationis simply not supportedby the organizationalchart,
particularlywhenthechartidentifiedthreeothersales-relatedemployees,only oneof whomwaspurportedly
compensatedon a commission-basis.If wasto becompensatedon a commissionbasis,it is
unclearwhy thepetitionerfailedto clarifythisinformationontheorganizationalchartaswasdonewith one
of theoutdoorsalesassociates.
It is incumbentuponthe petitionerto resolveany inconsistenciesin the recordby independentobjective
evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner
submitscompetentobjective evidencepointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19I&N Dec. 582, 591-
92 (BIA 1988). If USCISdoesnot believethat a fact statedin the petition is true, it mayreject that fact.
Section204(b)of the Act, 8 U.S.C.§ 1154(b);seealsoAnetekhaiv. LN.S.,876F.2d 1218,1220(5th
Cir.1989);Lu-AnnBakeryShop,Inc. v.Nelson,705F. Supp.7, 10(D.D.C.1988);SystronicsCorp.v. INS,
153F. Supp.2d7, 15(D.D.C.2001).
Thepetitionerhasfailedto providerequestedevidenceandinformationthat pertainsto the beneficiary's
qualifyingemploymentwith theU.S.entity,whatspecifictasksthebeneficiarywouldperformon a daily
basis,andwhetherthepetitionerwasadequatelystaffedto employthebeneficiaryin a positionwherehe
wouldfocustheprimaryportionof his timeontheperformanceof qualifyingtaskswithin a managerialor
executivecapacity.Thepetitionerhasalsoprovidedevidenceonappealthatfurtherunderminesthevalidity
of theclaimsbeingmadewith regardto theorganizationalstructurethatwasin placeatthetimetheFormI-
140was filed. Thepetitionerhasprovideddocumentsthat indicatethat thebeneficiarymay havebeen
involvedin two seeminglydistinctenterprises-onea generalpartnershipandtheotherthelimitedliability
companythat hasfiled the instantpetition-both of which appearto operateat the samelocation-2105
RoyalLane-without acredibleexplanationto clarifytheinformationthathasbeenpresented.In light of the
Page7
deficienciesandanomaliesthathaveaddressedin this discussion,theAAO findsthatthepetitioner'sclaims
regardingthebeneficiary'sproposedemploymentarenot credibleandareunsupportedby the evidenceof
record.TheAAO concludesthatthepetitionerhasfailedto establishthatthebeneficiarywouldbeemployed
in theUnitedStatesin a qualifyingmanagerialor executivecapacity.Onthebasisof thisinitial conclusion,
theinstantpetitioncannotbeapproved.
Thenextissueto beaddressedin thisproceedingis whetherthepetitionersubmittedsufficientevidenceto
establishthatit is doingbusinessin theUnitedStates.Theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(2)definesdoing
businessastheregular,systematic,andcontinuousprovisionof goodsand/orservicesby a firm,corporation,or
otherentityanddoesnotincludethemerepresenceofanagentoroffice.
Thepetitionerhasfailedtoprovideevidenceto establishthatit, ratherthanthegeneralpartnershipin whichthe
beneficiaryis a partner,is doingbusiness.Instead,thepetitionerhasprovidednumerousdocuments,including
leaseagreements,dealer'ssuretybondpaperwork,inventorystatements,salestaxreturns,andtitleapplicationsall
of whichpertaint thepartnership,keepingin mindthatthepetitionerwasauthorizedto do
businessas Whilesomeof thepartnership'sdocumentsreferto thepartnershipas
this wasclearlydonein errorandwithoutauthorizationto usethis name,asthe documentsin
questionpredatethepetitioner'sassumednamecertificate,whichclearlyshowsthatanentityby thenameof
' couldnothaveexistedpriorto March7,2005,whenthepetitionerfiledtheassumedname
certificate.
Furthermore,whiletheAAO acknowledgesthepetitioner'ssubmissionof federaltax returnsfor 2005,2006,
2007,and2008,all fourreturnsshowthatthepetitionerwasdoingbusinessasInternationalMarketingServices
andthe ScheduleK of all fourreturnsshowsthatthepetitionerwasin thebusinessof providingmarketing
services.Thisis entirelyinconsistentwithcounsel'sstatementsonappeal,theFormI-140itself,andwith other
documentsonrecord.Aspreviouslynotedtheburdenis onthepetitionerto resolveanyinconsistenciesin the
recordby independentobjectiveevidence.Any attemptto explainor reconcilesuchinconsistencieswill not
sufficeunlessthepetitionersubmitscompetentobjectiveevidencepointingto wherethetruthlies. Matterof
Ho, 19I&N Dec.at591-92.
In light of the considerabledeficiencies noted above, the AAO concludesthat the petitioner has failed to
provide evidenceshowing that it hasbeenand continuesto do businessin the United States. On the basisof
thissecondgroundfor denial,thepetitioncannotbeapproved.
Lastly,theAAO findsthattherecordcontainsotherdeficienciesthatwerenot previouslyaddressedin the
director'sdecision.
First,theAAO findsthatthepetitionerhasnotsubmittedsufficientevidenceandinformationpertainingtothe
beneficiary'semploymentabroad.Assuch,thepetitionerhasfailedto showthatit meetstherequirementat 8
C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B),whichstatesthatthepetitionermustestablishthatthebeneficiarywasemployed
abroadin aqualifyingmanagerialorexecutivepositionfor atleastoneoutof thethreeyearspriorto hisentry
to theUnitedStatesasanonimmigranttoworkfor thesameemployer.
Second,8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(C)statesthat the petitionermust establishthat it has a qualifying
relationshipwith thebeneficiary'sforeignemployer. Althoughthepetitionerclaimsto bethesubsidiaryof
the parententity wherethe beneficiaryclaimsto havebeenemployed,the only evidencethe petitioner
Page8
providedtocorroboratethisclaimis asingleundatedstockcertificate,whichpurportstoshowthattheforeign
entitywasissued1,000outof apossible50,000sharesof thepetitioner'sstockat someunspecifiedtime. The
petitionerhasnotprovidedotherevidence,suchasa stockledger,to showthatnoonebuttheforeignentity
wasissuedanyof thepetitioner'sstock. Assuch,theAAO cannotconcludethatthepetitioneris asubsidiary
of thebeneficiary'sforeignemployerasclaimed.
An applicationor petitionthatfails to complywith thetechnicalrequirementsof thelaw maybedeniedby
theAAO evenif theServiceCenterdoesnotidentifyall of thegroundsfor denialin theinitial decision.See
SpencerEnterprises,Inc. v. UnitedStates,229F. Supp.2d 1025,1043(E.D.Cal.2001),affd, 345F.3d683
(9thCir. 2003);seealsoSoltanev. DOJ, 381F.3d 143,145(3dCir. 2004)(notingthattheAAO reviews
appealson a denovobasis). Basedon theadditionalgroundsof ineligibility discussedabove,this petition
cannotbe approved.
The petition will be deniedfor the abovestatedreasons,with eachconsideredas an independentand
alternativebasisfor denial. In visa petitionproceedings,the burdenof provingeligibility for the benefit
soughtremainsentirelywith thepetitioner.Section291of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361.Thepetitionerhasnot
sustainedthatburden.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.