remanded EB-1C Case: Media

(b)(6)
DATE: JUL 2 4 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
FILE#: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Servic< 
Admini strative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W .• MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION RECEIPT#: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. All 
documents have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Any fmther inquiry must be 
made to that office. 
T;?= 
~on Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the preference visa petition. 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 has 30 employees and a gross annual income that exceeds $4 
million. The petitioner operates as a television broadcast and digital media company and seeks 
to employ the 
beneficiary as its vice president of television operations. 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)(1)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
In a decision dated August 22, 2014, the director denied the petition based on two independent adverse 
conclusions. The director found that the petitioner failed to establish that (1) the beneficiary was employed 
abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity; and (2) the beneficiary would be employed in the 
United States in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. The decision was based primarily on the 
director's assessment of the beneficiary's foreign and proposed job duties. Namely, the director determined 
that the petitioner provided job descriptions that lacked sufficient detail and thus deemed the submitted 
information to be "of limited evidentiary value." 
We find that the director placed emphasis on the beneficiary's job duties to the exclusion of other relevant 
factors. While the beneficiary's job description is often the first element to be reviewed when determining the 
managerial or executive nature ofthe beneficiary's proposed and/or foreign employment, the beneficiary's job 
duties should not be the sole determining factor. Rather, the director should give due consideration to both 
entities' organizational hierarchies, the beneficiary's respective positions therein, and evidence of both 
entities' overall ability to relieve the beneficiary from having to primarily perform the daily operational tasks. 
Therefore, while the director was correct in considering the beneficiary's job duties, this element must be 
assessed in light of a comprehensive analysis of these other relevant factors. 
In the present matter, the record indicates that the director's analysis was deficient in that it failed to consider 
that both the U.S. and foreign 
entities are equipped with sufficiently complex organizational structures with 
managerial tiers and lower level employees. The record also shows that the beneficiary's positions with 
respect to others within both entities were indicative of someone operating at a high management level. 
Consideration of the entire record strongly indicates that both entities are adequately staffed such as to relieve 
the beneficiary from having to primarily perform non-qualifying operational tasks. In light of our analysis of 
the record, we find that the director's grounds for denial must be withdrawn. 
Notwithstanding our decision to withdraw the director's decision, we are unable to sustain the appeal as a 
result of certain unexplained anomalies that were observed during the course of our review of the record. 
Namely, the petitioner's 2010,2011, and 2013 tax returns, Schedule G, indicate that the petitioner is majority 
owned by , and that was organized in the United States. All three tax returns 
provide an Employer Identification Number (EIN) assigned to the parent entity, despite the fact that the 
petitioner's original supporting statement, dated May 20, 2013, indicates that is a foreign corporation 
that was incorporated in China. We further note that the petitioner provided the same responses in 
Schedule K, Item 7 of the tax returns, indicating that no foreign person owned, directly or indirectly, at least 
25% of the petitioning entity. Although the petitioner was consistent in provided the same information within 
the tax returns, the information provided therein is entirely inconsistent with information that the petitioner's 
original claim regarding the parent entity's country of origin. In other words, while the petitioner's tax 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
returns identify as a domestic U.S. corporation with majority ownership interest in the petitioning entity, 
the petitioner's original supporting statement indicates that the petitioner is a multinational entity by virtue of 
having a foreign parent entity . See 8 C .F.R. § 204.5U)(2) (for definition of multinational) . As indicated , the 
petitioner's original claim is inconsistent with the information provided in the petitioner's tax return . 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, 59 I -92 (BIA 
1988). 
In addition, Schedule G of the petitioner 's 2013 tax return shows as owning I 00% of the petitioner's 
stock . This information is consistent with Schedule L Item 22(b) of the same tax return , which shows a 
considerable increase in the petitioner's shareholder's equity when comparing the amount shown at the 
beginning of the tax year with the amount shown at the end of the year. However , Schedule G of the 
petitioner 's prior tax returns for 20 I 0 and 2011 both show as owing 9 I% of the petitioner's sto~k. The 
petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence in the form of additional stock certificates or additional 
transactions in the petitioner ' s stock transfer ledger to explain increased ownership from 91% to I 00% 
of the petitioner's stock. 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 J&N Dec. 158, I 65 
(Comm. 1998) (citing Matter ofTr easure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
The regulation and case law confirm that ownership and control are the factors that must be examined in 
determining whether a qualifying relationship exists between United States and foreign entities for purposes 
of this visa classification. Matter of Church Scientology International , 19 I&N Dec. 593 (BIA 1988); see also 
Matter of Siemens Medical Systems , Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (Assoc. Comm. 1986); Matter of Hughes , 18 I&N 
Dec. 289 (Comm. 1982). In the context of this visa petition , ownership refers to the direct or indirect legal 
right of possession of the assets of an entity with full power and authority to control; control means the direct 
or indirect legal right and authority to direct the establishment, management, and operations of an entity. 
Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. at 595. 
In the present matter, the record as presently constituted lacks evidence to explain and resolve the 
inconsistencies and anomalies with regard to the petitioner 's ownership and ownership of the petitioner's 
parent entity. In order to determine whether a qualifying relationship exists, additional evidence is required. 
Accordingly, the instant matter must be remanded to the director for the purpose of allowing the petition er the 
opportunity to supplement the record with evidence that may address the deficiencies described above . 
ORDER: The decision of the director dated August 22, 20 I 4 is withdrawn. The matter is 
remanded for further action and consideration consistent with the above discussion 
and entry of a new deci sion, which, if adver se, shall be certified to the AAO for 
rev1ew.