dismissed EB-1C Case: Trading And Investment

identity mng data deleted to 
prevent clearly ~wamnted 
invasion of -1 plrivwy 
ISwc COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
WAC 03 169 53468 
PETITION: 
 Imrmgrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Lmmigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Adrmnistrative 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. 
-w,*". * --"-7- 
- c-& 
Robert P. Wiernann, Chief 
Adrmnistrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service Center. The 
petitioner appealed the matter to the Adrmnistrative Appeals Office (AAO). The AAO affirmed the director's 
decision in a summary dismissal of the appeal. The petitioner subsequently filed a motion seelung to reopen 
and reconsider the AAO sumrnary dismissal. The AAO dismissed the petitioner's motion in a decision dated 
March 22,2006. The matter is now before the AAO on second motion to reopen and reconsider. The motion 
will be dismissed. 
The petitioner claims to be a California entity organized in March 1997. It claims to be a trading and 
investment company seehng to employ the beneficiary as its general manager. Accordingly, the petitioner 
endeavors to classifL the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of 
the Irnmigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. fj 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or 
manager. 
In a decision dated October 14, 2004, the director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to 
establish that it has a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. Although the petitioner 
appealed the director's decision, the AAO determined that the brief internal statement provided by the 
petitioner was insufficient to overcome the director's findings. The AAO concluded that the petitioner failed 
to provide adequate evidence to establish the foreign entity's ownership. 
On first motion, counsel provided three documents with translations showing that the beneficiary owns a 
majority interest (65.2%) in the foreign entity. In rendering its decision, the AAO determined that the 
petitioner failed to address the inconsistency between the petitioner's claim that the beneficiary owns 100% of 
the foreign entity and the more recent claim on motion that the beneficiary only owns 65.2%. Although the 
AAO acknowledged that both instances show the beneficiary as the majority interest holder, the AAO focused 
on the inconsistency itself, whch gives rise to questions regarding the petitioner's credibility. See Matter of 
Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582,591 (BIA 1988). 
On second motion, counsel submits a brief statement attempting to reconcile the inconsistent claims 
regarding the beneficiary's ownership interest in the foreign entity. Counsel explains that while the 
beneficiary started with a 65.2% ownership interest, he acquired the remaining 34.8% share of the foreign 
entity in February of 1996 giving him 100% ownership of the foreign entity. However, going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Cra$ of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). The record does not indicate that any corroborating 
evidence has been submitted in support of counsel's explanation. The unsupported 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). Moreover, the 
explanation provided by counsel still does not explain the original inconsistent claim that the foreign entity 
and not the beneficiary owns 100% of the petitioner. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. fj 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 . 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. fj 103.5(a)(3) state, in pertinent part: 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any 
pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or Service policy. A motion to reconsider a decision on an application or 
petition must, when filed, also establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence 
of record at the time of the initial decision. 
In the AAO decision dated March 22, 2006, which served as the response to the petitioner's first motion, the 
AAO properly states that none of the evidence provided by counsel on motion can be deemed "new," as it was 
previously available and could have been provided on appeal. As such, the AAO concluded that the 
petitioner failed to meet the regulatory requirements of a motion to reopen. 
With regard to the motion to reconsider, the AAO properly found that the petitioner failed to submit argument 
or pertinent precedent decisions establishing that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or Service policy or that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the 
initial decision. Similarly, in the present case, counsel has failed to provide the necessary documentation to 
meet the regulatory requirements for a motion to reconsider. 
Therefore, the motion will be dismissed in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5(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 eligbility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 29 1 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.