remanded EB-1C Case: Computer Hardware

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave.. N.W., Rm. A3042 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 0 l 2 1 1 55376 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 0 2 2005 
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: 
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 01 21 1 55376 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service Center. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The case will be remanded for 
further action. 
The petitioner is engaged in the import and wholesale of computer cases and seeks to employ the beneficiary 
as its product manager. 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. 
$ 11 53(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 a foreign entity and denied the petition. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5CjX2) state in pertinent part: 
AfJiliate means: 
(A) One of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled by the same parent or 
individual; 
(B) One of two legal entities owned and controlled by the same group of individuals, each 
individual owning and controlling approximately the same share or proportion of each entity; 
Subsidiary means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity of which a parent owns, directly or 
indirectly, more than half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, 
half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, 50 percent of a 50-50 
joint venture and has equal control and veto power over the entity; or owns, directly or 
indirectly, less than half of the entity, but in fact controls the entity. 
In the denial, which was issued on April 24, 2004, the director noted that the same person owns a controlling 
interest in the U.S. and foreign entities owning 80% and 60% of each entity, respectively. However, the 
director concluded that the petitioner and the foreign entity lack the requisite common ownership and, 
therefore, cannot be deemed affiliates. The director also noted that the petitioner's tax returns for 1999, 2000, 
and 2001 show-as owner of the remaining 20% of the petitioner's stock, which is in conflict with 
information provided in the petitioner's stock certificates and Minutes of the Meeting submitted in support of 
the petition. 
On appeal the petitioner resubmits the stock certificates noted in the director's decision, as well as the 
Minutes of Meeting in which the board of directors determined the share distribution reflected in the 1993 
stock certificates. The petitioner also submitted subsequent Minutes of Meeting reflecting a 1998 
redistribution of the petitioner's shares, which was subsequently reflected in the petitioner's 1999, 2000, and 
2001 tax returns. 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. Mutter of Ho, 
19 1&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). In the instant case, the petitioner has submitted documentary 
evidence, which resolves the inconsistency noted by the director. 
WAC 01 21 1 55376 
Page 3 
Further, the basis for the director's denial was invalid. The petitioner does not need to establish that the exact 
same group of individuals owns the U.S. and foreign entities. The primary concern in establishing a 
qualifying relationship is determining that the two entities are similarly owned and controlled. In the instant 
case, the same individual owns 60% of the foreign entity and 80% of the U.S. petitioner. As such, both 
entities were owned and effectively controlled by the same individual, regardless of the owners of the 
remaining share of either entity. Accordingly, the director's decision is hereby withdrawn. 
It is noted that despite the director's erroneous conclusion, the petition cannot currently be sustained, as there 
are various issues, which were not addressed by the director, that remain unresolved. Namely, the record 
lacks sufficient information regarding the beneficiary's job duties overseas and his proposed job duties in the 
United States. When examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look 
first to the petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5Cj)(5). Reciting the beneficiary's 
vague job responsibilities or broadly cast business objectives is not sufficient; the regulations require a 
detailed description of the beneficiary's daily job duties. A review of the job descriptions provided suggests 
that the petitioner has failed to answer a critical question in this case: What does the beneficiary primarily do 
on a daily basis? The actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., 
Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1 103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
This case will be remanded so that the director can adequately review all of the pertinent evidence and 
address the issues cited above. 
ORDER: The decision of the director, dated April 24, 2004, is withdrawn. The matter is 
remanded for the purpose of issuing a new decision, which if adverse to the 
petitioner, shall be certified to the AAO for review.