remanded EB-1C Case: Import/Retail

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7861363 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 17, 2020 
The Petitioner, describing itself as an importer of dollar store merchandise, seeks to permanently employ 
the Beneficiary as its director under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational 
executives or managers. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S .C. 
§ 1153(b )(1 )(C). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner had the ability to pay the Beneficiary's proffered wage. 
The Petitioner later filed a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider and the Director affirmed his 
denial of the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner contends it 
has submitted sufficient evidence to establish that it paid the Beneficiary's proffered wage during the 
year the petition was filed. Further , the Petitioner submits a 2018 IRS Form 1120, U.S. Corporation 
Income Tax Return previously requested by the Director. 
We will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for the entry of a new decision 
consistent with the following analysis. The Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence to establish it 
more likely than not paid the Beneficiary's proffered wage in the United States in the year the petition 
was filed . The Director previously denied the petition and the later motions noting the Petitioner's 
failure to submit requested IRS Forms 1120. The Petitioner provides this required evidence on appeal. 
As such, the Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated that the Beneficiary had the ability to pay the 
Beneficiary's proffered wage. 
However, beyond the decision of the Director, we conclude that the record as currently constituted is 
not sufficient to establish that the Beneficiary would have acted in an asserted managerial capacity as 
of the date the petition was filed. 1 The Beneficiary's U.S. duty description includes few credible 
details to substantiate his actual day-to-day qualifying managerial tasks. The Petitioner also submitted 
little supporting documentation to demonstrate that the Beneficiary would primarily act in a 
managerial capacity in the United States. This lack of detail and supporting evidence is particularly 
noteworthy as that the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary has acted in this capacity for several years. 
1 The petition was filed on February 23, 2018. 
Further, the Petitioner submitted an organizational chart with the pet1t10n reflecting that the 
Beneficiary supervised two subordinate managers, including a deputy director and an accounts and 
billing/office manager. The chart farther reflected that these supervisors oversaw three operational 
level employees and other contractors. The Petitioner asserted that it had six employees as of the date 
the petition was filed. 
However, the Petitioner provided IRS Forms 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Returns for the 
first and second quarter of 2018, corresponding with the time the petition was filed, reflecting that it 
had only four employees. In addition, the Petitioner submitted 2018 IRS Forms W-2, Wage and Tax 
Statements indicating that the Beneficiary's two claimed subordinate managers were not paid their 
proffered salaries during that year. The Petitioner also provided insufficient evidence to demonstrate 
that it engaged contractors and foreign employees to supplement its organizational structure as 
claimed. The Petitioner must resolve discrepancies in the record with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). These 
discrepancies and insufficiencies leave substantial uncertainty as to whether the Beneficiary would 
have acted in an asserted managerial capacity as of the date the petition was filed in February 2018. 
On remand, the Director may issue a new request for evidence pertaining to concerns described herein 
or other issues as he deems necessary in order to determine the petitioner's eligibility for the benefit 
sought. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director dated July 30, 2019 is withdrawn. The matter is remanded 
for the entry of a new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2