dismissed EB-1C Case: Travel Services

identifying data deleted to 
prevent c1ezi.i , ttr:~-varranted 
invasion of psrsutiai privacy 
PUBUC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
SRC 05 144 51648 
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. 3 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. 
.- 
_- - 
 - -.-.---. 
--.&.I- - -- ac;, 
~obek&?Wik&, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: 
 The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center. 
 The 
petitioner appealed the matter to the Adrmnistrative Appeals Office (AAO) where the appeal was dismissed. 
The matter is now before the AAO on motion to reopen and reconsider. The motion will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of providing travel services to travel 
agencies. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its president and chief executive officer. Accordingly, the 
petitioner endeavors to class@ 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. 
In a decision dated June 23, 2005, the director denied the petition based on three independent grounds of 
ineligibility: (1) the beneficiary was not employed by the foreign entity in a primarily managerial or executive 
capacity; (2) the beneficiary would not be employed by the United States entity in a primarily managerial or 
executive capacity; and (3) a qualifjrlng relationship did not exist between the foreign and United States 
entities at the time of filing. The director properly discussed the petitioner's failure to provide the previously 
requested time allocations for the beneficiary's specific daily job duties and observed that the record lacks 
documentation establishing that the petitioner was equipped with a sufficient support staff able to relieve the 
beneficiary from having to primarily perform non-qualifjrlng daily operational tasks at the time the Form I- 
140 was filed. 
The petitioner appealed the denial disputing the director's findings. The AAO dismissed the appeal, affirming 
all three grounds for ineligibility as cited in the director's decision. In its discussion, the AAO restated the 
procedural history of this matter and specifically recited job descriptions and other statements provided by 
the petitioner and its counsel. The AAO noted an inconsistency in the petitioner's claim regarding the 
beneficiary's employment capacity, pointing out that the beneficiary was referred to by two different job titles, 
one job title suggesting employment in an executive capacity and the other suggesting employment in a 
managerial capacity. The AAO also discussed the petitioner's provision of a broad list of the beneficiary's 
job resposibilities in lieu of a detailed list of the beneficiary's specific daily job duties, which were requested 
by the director. The AAO properly concluded that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient information and 
supporting evidence to establish that the beneficiary's duties would primarily be within a qualifying capacity 
and that the petitioner itself was adequately staffed with employees and/or independent contractors who 
would readily relieve the beneficiary from having to primarily engage in daily operational tasks. The 
petitioner's failure to address the beneficiary's employment abroad was also properly noted. 
With regard to the third ground for denial of the petition and subsequent dismissal of the appeal, the AAO 
stated that the petitioner failed to provide evidence to reconcile the information reflected in its stock 
certificate and its 2003 and 2004 tax returns. 
On motion, counsel summarizes the AAO's three grounds for dismissing the appeal and provides information 
regarding the beneficiary's position abroad. However, as with the job description regarding the beneficiary's 
proposed employment in the United States, counsel's description of the beneficiary's foreign employment 
consists of general job responsibilities rather than specific duties. Specifics are clearly an important 
indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily executive or managerial in nature; otherwise 
meeting the definitions would simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Suva, 
724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), afyd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Moreover, the petitioner's failure to 
address on appeal the issue of the beneficiary's duties abroad precludes the petitioner from revisiting this 
Page 3 
issue on motion. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 
533 (BIA 1988). 
With regard to the beneficiary's proposed employment with the U.S. petitioner, counsel again clarifies the 
nature of the petitioner's business, despite the AAO's clear indication that the clarification had been 
previously noted and accepted, and briefly discusses the beneficiary's involvement in all aspects of the 
petitioner's operations. Counsel also repeats the claim that the beneficiary is responsible for personnel 
management and submits a new organizational chart showing the additions to the company's personnel 
structure without any documentation to show when each of the employees was hired or to corroborate that 
the employees were, in fact, hired as claimed. As stated in the AAO's prior decision, 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 (Cornrn. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Crafi of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Cornrn. 1972)). 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). 
With regard to the issue of the petitioner's claimed qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign 
employer, the petitioner resubmits stock certificate no. 1, which identifies the foreign entity as the owner of 5 1 
shares of the petitioner, and submits stock certificate no. 2 identifying the beneficiary as the owner of the 
remaining 49 of the petitioner's issued shares. The petitioner also provides amended tax returns for 2003 and 
2004 to reflect the foreign entity's alleged 5 1% ownership of the petitioner. It is noted, however, that like a 
delayed birth certificate, the amended tax returns filed years after the claimed transaction and after the 
original tax returns have been brought into question raise serious doubts regarding the truth of the facts 
asserted. CJ: Matter of Bueno, 2 1 I&N Dec. 1029, 1033 (BIA 1997); Matter of Ma, 20 I&N Dec. 394 (BIA 
199 l)(discussing the evidentiary weight accorded to delayed birth certificates in immigrant visa 
proceedings). 
Counsel asks that all of the most recent submissions provided on motion be considered and that the matter of 
the AAO's prior dismissal of the appeal be reopened and reconsidered. 
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. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. $ 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 [Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS)] 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 present matter, neither the additional information regarding the beneficiary's foreign and U.S. 
employment nor the documentation regarding the petitioner's ownership, which has been provided by counsel 
on motion, can be deemed "new," as these submissions were previously available and could have been 
Page 4 
provided on appeal. 
 As such, the AAO concludes that the petitioner failed to meet the regulatory 
requirements of a motion to reopen. 
With regard to the motion to reconsider, the AAO finds 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. 
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 eligbility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.