remanded EB-1C Case: Business

Identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarr~ted 
invasion of personal pnvacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
OCT 25 2011 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. § 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The matter will be remanded for 
further consideration. 
The petitioner is a California corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its vice president. 
Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant 
to section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C), as a 
multinational executive or manager. 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish that it has a qualifying relationship with the 
beneficiary's foreign employer and denied the petition on the basis of that conclusion. The director's 
conclusion was based, in part, on discrepancies between statements made by the petitioner's counsel in a letter 
dated September 8, 2007 and documentation that was subsequently submitted in response to a request for 
evidence (RFE), which was issued on January 20,2009. Namely, the director found that counsel's reference 
to the petitioner as a wholly owned subsidiary of the beneficiary's foreign employer was inconsistent with 
documentation that the petitioner submitted in response to the RFE, which indicated that the petitioner is an 
affiliate, rather than the subsidiary, of the foreign entity. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any 
inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such 
inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where 
the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
After comprehensively reviewing the record, the AAO finds that the inconsistency has been resolved. 
Although the petitioner's prior counsel did in fact refer to the petitioner as the wholly-owned subsidiary of the 
beneficiary's foreign employer, the AAO observes that counsel's letter was dated September 8, 2007. The 
record shows that the change in the petitioner's ownership did not take place until September 28,2007. Thus, 
while the AAO acknowledges that the Form 1-140 was filed on October 11, 2007, counsel's support letter 
predates the filing by more than one month and it predates the changes in the petitioner's ownership by twenty 
days. As such, it appears that the inconsistency was the result of an inadvertent error made by prior counsel 
due to his failure to ensure that the information offered in the support letter reflected the events that had taken 
place as of the date the petition was filed. 
A review of the record indicates that the petitioner and the foreign entity have an affiliate relationship in that 
they are both owned by one common owner. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2) (providing the definition of the term 
"affiliate"). Accordingly, the AAO hereby withdraws the director's decision. 
Notwithstanding our withdrawal of the director's adverse decision, the AAO finds that the record as presently 
constituted does not establish that the petitioner established eligibility for the immigration benefit sought 
herein. 
Section 203(b) ofthe Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
* * * 
Page 3 
(C) Certain Multinational Executives and Managers. -- An alien is described 
in this subparagraph if the alien, in the 3 years preceding the time of the 
alien's application for classification and admission into the United States 
under this subparagraph, has been employed for at least 1 year by a firm or 
corporation or other legal entity or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof and who 
seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to render services to the 
same employer or to a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is 
managerial or executive. 
The language of the statute is specific in limiting this provision to only those executives and managers who 
have previously worked for a firm, corporation or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary of that entity, 
and who are coming to the United States to work for the same entity, or its affiliate or subsidiary. 
A United States employer may file a petition on Form 1-140 for classification of an alien under section 
203(b)(1)(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. No labor certification is required for this 
classification. The prospective employer in the United States must furnish a job offer in the form of a 
statement which indicates that the alien is to be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity. Such a statement must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the alien. 
In the present matter, the AAO finds that the record lacks sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary 
was employed abroad and that he would be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or 
executive capacity as required by statute. See also 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(j)(3)(i)(A) and (B) (requiring that the 
beneficiary has the requisite period of qualifying employment abroad) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5) (requiring 
the petitioner to provide a job offer describing the specific job duties the beneficiary will perform in his 
proposed employment with the U.S. entity). 
Additionally, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(D) requires the petitioner to provide sufficient documentary evidence 
establishing that the petitioner had been doing business for at least one year prior to filing the petition. 
Although the record clearly establishes that the petitioner existed as a corporate entity during the relevant one­
year time period, the petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to establish that the petitioner had been 
doing business during the time period in question. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2) for the definition of the term 
"doing business." 
The director may address these deficiencies either by issuing either a notice of intent to deny or another RFE 
or by denying the petition based on the record. 
ORDER: The decision of the director dated September 25, 2009 is withdrawn. The matter is 
remanded to the Nebraska Service Center for further action and consideration 
consistent with the above discussion and entry of a new decision, which, if adverse, 
shall be certified to the AAO for review.