remanded EB-1C Case: Plastics Manufacturing

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. ~.W ., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Date: FEB 1 0 2014 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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: 
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. 
Thank you, 
./ 
Ron Rosen berg 
0 Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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 AAO will remand the matter 
for further action. 
The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as a multinational executive or manager pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C). The petitioner, a 
Washington corporation established in 1998, is a plastic manufacturer. It claims to be a subsidiary of the 
beneficiary's foreign employer, (the foreign entity), located in France. The 
petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as its President. 1 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish the following: (I) that the 
beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity in one of three years prior 
to his entry into the United States ; and (2) that the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial or 
executive position with the U.S. petitioning entity . 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary meets the 
qualifications of a multinational executive or manager. Counsel submits a brief and additional evidence in 
support of the appeal. 
I. The Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part (with emphasis added): 
(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): 
* * * 
1 The beneficiary entered the United States as an L-lB nonimmigrant on April 3, 2007 . The petitioner filed 
the present Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker , on or about November 23, 2011, or 4 years , 
seven months , and 20 days after his entry as an L-1 B. 
The maximum period of stay for an L-lB nonimmigrant is five years , while L-1A nonimmigrants are allowed 
a total of seven years. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(12). When an L-1 B alien is promoted to a managerial or executive 
position, he or she must have been employed in the managerial or executive position for at least six months to 
be eligible for the total period of stay of seven years as an L-lA. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(15)(ii). Furthermore, 
the change to managerial or executive capacity must have been approved by USCIS in an amended , new, or 
extended petition at the time that the change occurred . !d. There is no similar prohibition on the filing of an I-
140 immigrant visa petition for an L-IB nonimmigrant based on a promotion to a managerial or executive 
position, provided the petitioner establishes eligibility in all respects. See also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(16). 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3) states: 
(i) Required evidence. A petition for a multinational executive or manager must be 
accompanied by a statement from an authorized official of the petitioning United States 
employer which demonstrates that: 
(A) Ifthe alien is outside the United States, in the three years immediately preceding 
the filing of the petition the alien has been employed outside the United States for at 
least one year in a managerial or executive capacity by a firm or corporation, or other 
legal entity, or by an affiliate or subsidiary of such a firm or corporation or other 
legal entity; or 
(B) If the alien is already in the United States working for the same employer or a 
subsidiary or affiliate of the firm or corporation, or other legal entity by which the 
alien was employed overseas, in the three years preceding entry as a nonimmigrant, 
the alien was employed by the entity abroad for at least one year in a managerial or 
executive capacity; 
(C) The prospective employer in the United States is the same employer or a 
subsidiary or affiliate of the firm or corporation or other legal entity by which the 
alien was employed overseas; 
With respect to managerial and executive capacity, section I 0 l(a)( 44) of the Act defines the terms as follows: 
(A) The term "managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily--
(i) manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of 
the organization; 
(ii) supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial 
employees, or manages an essential function within the organization, or a department 
or subdivision of the organization; 
(iii) if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the authority 
to hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel actions (such as 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
promotion and leave authorization) or, if no other employee is directl y supervised , 
functions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the 
function managed ; and 
(iv) exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or function for 
which the employee has authority. 
A first-line supervisor is not considered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely 
by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are 
professional. 
(B) The term "executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primaril y--
(i) directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of 
the organization; 
(ii) establishes the goals and policies ofthe organization, component , or function; 
(iii) exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
(iv) receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives , the 
board of directors , or stockholders of the organization. 
II. Facts and Procedural History 
The petitioner filed Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on November 23, 2011. On Form 1-
140, the petitioner indicated that it employs 20 employees and has a gross annual income of$2 .1 million. The 
petitioner's Form 941, Employer's QUARTERLY Federal Tax Return , for the third quarter of 2011 (ending 
in September), submitted with the initial petition, reflects that the U.S. entity employ s 21 employees. 
In a letter accompanying the initial petition , the petitioner asserted that the beneficiary is and has been 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity . With regards to the beneficiary 's employment capacity 
abroad , the petitioner asserted that the beneficiary has been employed by the foreign entity since 1998 in 
positions of increasing responsibility and authority. The petitioner asserted that immediately prior to the 
beneficiary 's transfer to the United States in March 2007, he served in the executive and managerial role of 
Sales Manager for the foreign entity. The petitioner asserted that in his capacity as Sales Manager, the 
beneficiary managed the engineering team directly involved in developing the company product , and directed 
the sales and marketing initiatives of the company . 
The petitioner listed the beneficiary 's job duties abroad as follows: 
Employee Management 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
[The beneficiary] oversaw a Prototype-Engineering team of five (5) professionals, including 
four (4) Engineers and one (1) Operator . [The beneficiary] also developed standards of 
service delivery and held the team accountable for meeting customer expectations. 
Sales Management 
[The beneficiary] was responsible for the commercial development of [the foreign entity] , 
which included leading its sales and marketing efforts. [The beneficiary] ensured that all 
customer requests were met and that quotes were developed based upon the exact technical 
needs of each customer. [The beneficiary] was also responsible for identifying new market 
opportunities .... 
Budget Management 
[The beneficiary] forecasted the necessary budgets and ensured the company followed budget 
requirements . [The beneficiary] was also intimately involved in developing the company's 
overall business plan. 
With regards to the beneficiary's employment in an executive and managerial role in the United States, the 
petitioner described the beneficiary ' s proposed job duties, as President of the U.S. office , as follows: 
Employee Management 
[The beneficiary] will directly manage and supervise a number of professionals throughout 
the company. Specifically, [the beneficiary] will directly manage the company 's two (2) 
Engineers . . . In addition, [the beneficiary] will oversee the functions of the Workshop and 
all (U.S.] employees working therein , including the Shop Supervisor. The workshop is 
comprised of six sub-operations: CNC Technology, Sawing, Bending, Assembly and 
Shipping . [The beneficiary] will set a specific goal for each subdivision of the Workshop and 
will meet with the Shop Supervi sor daily to hear a report and ensure that each goal is being 
met. (The beneficiary] will set the policies and procedures for both the Engineers and the 
Workshop, ensuring they are in line with the overall goals of the company. 
Sales Management 
[The beneficiary] will also direct and manage the company 's sales and marketing efforts . He 
will be responsible for ensuring that all customer requests were met and that quotes were 
developed based upon the exact technical needs of each customer. [The beneficiary] wi II also 
be responsible for identifying and developing new markets within the United States and the 
continued smooth assimilation of the customer base purchased from competitors . 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Proprietary Management 
[The beneficiary] will oversee the continuing implementation of the company's 
manufacturing procedures and proprietary techniques that [the foreign entity] frequently 
updates into the [petitioning] facility. This will include overseeing the Workshop personnel 
to ensure they understand procedure. [The beneficiary] will also train Design and 
Manufacturing personnel with respect to [the foreign entity's] machinery and processes. 
The director issued a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID), advising the petitioner that the United States 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) was in possession of "adverse information" affecting the 
instant petition. Specifically, USCIS advised the petitioner that it filed Form I-129, Petition for 
Nonimmigrant Worker ( for the beneficiary requesting L-lB classification of specialized 
knowledge. According to the NOID , the cover letter accompanying the Form I-129 petition stated the 
following: 
Employed by 
by nine years before coming to [the petitioner] in 2007, [the beneficiary] 
has a broad, high-level experience in the areas of sales and marketing and [the company's] 
proprietary design and manufacturing systems. [The beneficiary's] experience and training at 
[the foreign entity] and his first three years in the U.S. bring to [the petitioner] a depth of 
special knowledge that no one at [the petitioner] currently has and that cannot be acquired 
absent hands-on experience with [the foreign company] and continuing training by the 
personnel there regarding new processes. 
His sales and marketing experience has provided an extensive knowledge of our products , 
and makes [the beneficiary] uniquely qualified to carry on these functions. While working 
for [the foreign entity], [the beneficiary] was responsible for responding to customer 
inquiries, as well as formulating quotes for enclosure products . This is a very specialized 
process as it requires knowledge of customers and new market opportunities. Here in the 
U.S. he has developed new customers and is a critical component in making the incorporation 
of our acquired book of business successful. 
[The beneficiary's] training process at [the foreign entity] included spending considerable 
amounts of time over the years working in every area of the manufacturing process, from the 
milling machines, to the special blending machines that [the foreign entity] has developed all 
the way through to learning how to assemble product. In order to understand the details of 
initial design, he has worked with [the foreign entity 's] design and engineering department. 
His working knowledge of the procedures necessary to bring about the proper production 
method and management techniques of the flow of operations is vital for us to continue 
improving and changing over to the [company] method that has been tremendously 
successful for the operation in France. 
[The beneficiary] has also developed, through years of hands-on experience and continuing 
training in France , a working knowledge of the complexities of the Enterprise Resource 
Planning (ERP) system that he will be responsible for implementing the new upgrade at [the 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
petitioner] in technology that he will implement in the U.S. because of the proprietary nature 
of ERP, [the beneficiary's] specialized knowledge about the inner workings of this 
technology makes him an invaluable addition to our team in Washington [sic].2 
Based upon the Form T-129 cover letter, the director conciuded that the beneficiary was not employed abroad 
in an executive or managerial capacity, and that he will not be employed in such capacity in the U.S. entity. 
The director stated: 
The support letter submitted with the I-129 petition makes no mention that the beneficiary 
was or will be in an executive or managerial position as the l-140 support letter indicates. 
The I-129 support letter makes no mention that the beneficiary oversaw a Prototype­
Engineering team of five (5) professional [sic], including four (4) Engineers and one (l) 
Operator. The l-129 support letter makes no mention that [sic] beneficiary will directly 
manage and supervise a number of professionals throughout the company. The I-129 support 
letter specifically states over and over that the beneficiary is qualified as a result of his 
specialized knowledge. Evidence provided does not establish that the beneficiary was 
employed by the foreign entity in an executive or managerial capacity or that the U.S. entity 
will employ the beneficiary in an executive or managerial capacity. 
In response to the NOID, the petitioner asserted that the beneficiary was employed by the foreign entity in a 
managerial and executive capacity, and that he will be employed in a managerial and executive capacity in the 
United States. The petitioner asserted that, as the Sales Manager for the foreign entity, the beneficiary had 
extensive specialized knowledge of the company's strategies, products, and systems, while concurrently 
serving in a managerial or executive capacity. The petitioner asserted that it was the beneficiary's specialized 
knowledge that enabled him to be an effective manager and executive. The petitioner asserted that "these two 
aspects of [the beneficiary's] role with [the foreign entity] were not mutually exclusive" and there is no 
contradiction between the L-1 petition and the instant petition. The petitioner explained that the L-1 petition 
emphasized the specialized knowledge nature of the beneficiary's experience. The petitioner asserted: 
"However, the fact that the nonimmigrant petition did not mention [the beneficiary's] managerial and 
executive position within the company in France does not mean it did not exist. It simply was not deemed 
relevant to the argument at hand in support of the transfer at the time, and thereby not discussed." 
As to the beneficiary's proposed position in the United States, the petitioner also asserted that there is no 
contradiction between the L-1 petition and the instant petition. The petitioner asserted that the beneficiary's 
job duties are prospective in nature, and there is nothing contradictory with respect to the manner in which the 
beneficiary was originally transferred to the United States and the current filing for his future employment 
with the company. 
2 
The director did not submit copies of the petitioner's actual Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker 
, or any documents contained therein. The AAO has obtained this previous petition and 
wi II incorporate the documents into the current record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
The petttloner provided additional descriptions of the beneficiary's foreign and proposed job duties. 
Regarding his foreign duties, the petitioner asserted that the beneficiary directly oversaw the Prototype­
Engineering team, which consisted of four engineers and one operator. In this capacity, the beneficiary 
ensured that the team members understood the clients' needs and properly executed the terms of the contract; 
set and managed the engineering schedules and the team's progress. In addition, the beneficiary directly 
managed the Sales Team, which consisted of two sales professionals. In this capacity, the beneficiary trained 
the sales professionals, lead weekly team meetings, set future expectations, and made recommendations to the 
President regarding the sales professionals' progress. Furthermore, the beneficiary was responsible for 
commercial development, which included sales and project management, managing and developing an 
extensive customer base, personally meeting with customers to develop relationships, providing customer 
quotes, and negotiating contracts on behalf of the foreign entity. The beneficiary was also responsible for 
acting as a liaison between the customer and production, thereby responsible for project management. The 
beneficiary's executive duties abroad included consulting with the President to set sales and marketing 
strategies, evaluating the company's strategies against its competitors, and implementing the marketing 
strategies such as setting website design, advertising and customer meetings and ensuring that all of the items 
fit within the company's marketing budget. 
Regarding the beneficiary's proposed duties in the United States, the petitioner asserted that the beneficiary's 
proposed position is clearly managerial and executive in nature. In his position of President, the beneficiary 
will directly manage the company's two full-time engineers. The beneficiary will also oversee the company's 
workshop, including the Shop Supervisor and the eleven employees therein. The beneficiary will also 
oversee the Financial Officer, the Quality and Administrative Assistant, and the Administrative Assistant. 
In support of the NOlO, the petitioner submitted the foreign entity's organizational chart dated 2006, which 
depicted the foreign entity has being led by the President at the top. Directly below the President are the 
beneficiary as Sales Manager, the Financial Officer, and the Quality Manager in parallel positions. The 
beneficiary is depicted as overseeing the company's two technical sales employees and an engineering­
methods employee who in tum oversees five other employees (design, 3D, concept, assembly prototypes) and 
a prototypes operator. The petitioner also submitted the foreign entity's job description for the Sales Manager 
position last updated in 2006, which included the following duties: supervise new customer prospecting; 
elaborate pricing; sales negotiation; follow up with customers; technical negotiation; design prototypes; 
member of the managing team, report to CEO; pilot of the action plans (ex: corrective actions); and being in 
charge of technical sales and engineers. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was 
employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or that he will be employed in the United 
States in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. In concluding that the petitioner failed to establish 
that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, the director 
acknowledged the petitioner's claims that the beneficiary had specialized knowledge of the company's 
products in order to effectively market the products. However, the director stated that "specialized knowledge 
of the petitioner's product would be just as important to other employees of the U.S. entity, who would not be 
at the top of the hierarchy." The director concluded that because the l-129 support letter was silent as to the 
beneficiary's managerial or executive capacity, the petitioner failed to establish that that the beneficiary was 
employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity abroad. The director also questioned how the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
beneficiary ' s sales manager posttton could be executive in nature, considering that the foreign entity's 
organizational chart shows the beneficiary as below the President. 
In concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary will be employed in the United States 
in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, the director acknowledged the petitioner's letter indicating 
that the beneficiary will directly manage and supervise all subordinates in the company , including two full­
time engineers, a shop supervisor, the workshop, a financial officer and an administrative assistant. However, 
the director observed that the petitioner failed to provide a U.S. organizational chart. The director thus 
concluded that "the totality of the evidence submitted in reference to the U.S. entity does not establish that the 
U.S. entity contains the organizational complexity to warrant a 'true' executive position and the U.S. job 
duties submitted are very vague and the duties do not establish to be both managerial and executive in 
nature." 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary was employed abroad, and will be employed 
in the United States, in a qualifying managerial and executive capacity. Counsel asserts that the beneficiary's 
specialized knowledge and managerial responsibilities are not mutually exclusive. Counsel claims that the 
employer was silent as to the beneficiary's managerial role when it petitioned for the beneficiary's L-1 visa 
not because his managerial role did not exist, but rather, because it was not relevant to the specialized 
knowledge petition. Counsel also insists that the instant petition is prospective in nature and thus does not 
contradict previously filed nonimmigrant petitions . In support of the appeal, counsel submits letters from the 
beneficiary's professional affiliates attesting to his prior and current managerial and executive employment. 
III. Analysis 
Upon review ofthe record, counsel's assertions are persuasive in establishing that the director's denial was 
based upon an improper analysis. 
Regarding the beneficiary's employment capacity abroad, the fact that the foreign entity previously employed 
the beneficiary in a specialized knowledge capacity does not establish that the beneficiary was not also 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity, absent clear contradictions or inconsistencies in the 
evidence. A thorough review of the record fails to reveal any actual contradiction or inconsistency in the 
petitioner's claims or evidence. In the cover letter for the I -129 petition, the petitioner discusses the different 
ways in which the beneficiary acquired and applied his specialized knowledge during his long term 
employment with the foreign entity . None of the petitioner's statements in the cover letter inherently 
contradicts the petitioner's current claims regarding the beneficiary employment capacity abroad. The 
petitioner's failure to mention the beneficiary's managerial or executive role in the support letter for the 1-129 
specialized knowledge petition - when this information was not required in order to establish eligibility for 
the L-1 B visa - does not constitute a contradiction or inconsistency in the evidence. 
While the director also questioned how the beneficiary ' s sales manager position could be executive in nature 
when the beneficiary was subordinate to the President, the director failed to explain or provide any support for 
this conclusion. The director has not explained how the beneficiary's position within the foreign entity's 
organizational hierarchy, as directly subordinate to the President, undermines the petitioner's claim that the 
beneficiary was employed in an executive capacity abroad. The petitioner's claims are enhanced by the fact 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
that the both current immigrant visa petition and the previous L-1 8 nonimmigrant petition represent the 
beneficiary as employed at a higher level of the overseas organization. The director may not deny a petition 
based on inferences or conclusions that are not supported by the record. 
The AAO also finds counsel's assertions regarding the beneficiary's employment capacity in the United 
States to be persuasive . The beneficiary's employment in a specialized knowledge capacity does not preclude 
his prospective employment in a managerial or executive capacity. Again, a thorough review of the record 
fails to reveal any actual contradiction or inconsistency in the petitioner's claims or evidence regarding the 
beneficiary's employment capacity in the United States. 
In denying the petition on this second ground, the director relied on improper reasoning and unsupported 
conclusions. For instance, the director noted that the petitioner failed to provide a U.S. organizational chart. 
However, the director never requested 
this specific document. The petitioner's failure to submit evidence that 
was never requested by the director cannot be used to discredit a petitioner's otherwise consistent claim. 
Moreover, the director provided no explanation for its claim that the U.S. entity does not contain the 
organizational complexity to warrant a "true" executive position. While the director did not elaborate on the 
nature of a "true" executive, the evidence in the record confirms that the petitioner employs 20 or 
21 employees and has a gross annual income of $2.1 million. 
As the director has not articulated any proper basis for finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary's foreign employment abroad and his proposed employment in the United States was and will be 
in a managerial or executive capacity, the AAO will withdraw the director's decision. 
IV. Beyond the Decision of the Director 
A. The Beneficiary's Employment Capacity 
Although the director's decision will be withdrawn, the AAO notes that the record contains insufficient 
information to make an accurate and fair assessment of the beneficiary's employment capacity abroad and 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.P.R. § 204.5(j)(5). Here, the petitioner ' s descriptions of the 
beneficiary's job duties indicate that he was and will be responsible for a variety of qualifying as well as non­
qualifying duties. The beneficiary's qualifying responsibilities abroad included overseeing an engineering 
team , budget management , and developing the company's overall business plan. However, he was also 
responsible for non-qualifying duties abroad, such as ensuring that all customer requests were met, 
responding to customer inquiries, and formulating quotes for enclosure products. 
Similarly, the beneficiary's proposed job duties in the United States include qualifying as well as non­
qualifying duties . In the United States, the beneficiary will be responsible for qualifying duties such as 
directly managing the company's two engineers and overseeing the workshop, including the Shop Supervisor. 
Nonetheless , he will also be responsible for non-qualifying duties such as ensuring that all customer requests 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
are met, ensuring that quotes are properly developed , and for identifying and developing new markets in the 
United States. 
The petitioner's description of the beneficiary's job duties does not establish what proportion of the 
beneficiary's duties was or will be qualifying in nature, and what proportion was or will be non-qualifying in 
nature. This information is critical , as whether the beneficiary is a managerial or executive employee turns on 
whether his duties are "primarily" managerial or executive in nature . See sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of 
the Act; see also Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 l&N Dec . 593, 604 (Comm. 1988). Based 
on the current record, the AAO is unable to determine whether the claimed qualifying duties constitute the 
majority of the beneficiary's duties, or whether the beneficiary primarily performed non-qualifying duties. 
See Republic ofTranskei v. INS, 923 F.2d 175, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1991). 
The AAO acknowledges that no beneficiary is required to allocate all of his or her time to managerial or 
executive tasks. However , the petitioner must also establish that the beneficiary 's non-qualifying tasks do not 
constitute a majority of his time. Here, the record contains elements of both eligibility and ineligibility, and 
the petitioner was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to provide additional relevant information , as the 
NOID issued by the director focused on petitioner's silence on its prior Form I-129. For these reasons, the 
AAO will remand the matter t~ the director. 
B. Qualifying Relationship 
Finally , beyond the director ' s decision, the record lacks sufficient evidence to establish that the petitioner and 
the beneficiary ' s employer abroad have a qualifying relationship. To establish a "qualifying relationship" 
under the Act and the regulations , the petitioner must show that the beneficiary's foreign employer and the 
proposed U.S. employer are the same employer (i.e. a U.S. entity with a foreign office) 
or related as a "parent 
and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See generally§ 203(b)(l)(C) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C . § 1153(b)(1)(C); see also 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2) (providing definitions of the terms "affiliate" and "subsidiary") . 
With the initial petition , the petitioner claimed that it is a subsidiary of the foreign entity based upon the 
foreign entity's 2006 acquisition of the U.S. entity. However, the record contains no documentary evidence 
establishing the claimed 2006 acquisition . 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 (Comm. 1998) (c.iting Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 
1972)). 
Moreover, in support of the appeal , the petitioner submitted a letter from the U.S . entity's Financial Officer , 
dated June 21, 2002, stating that in February 2012, "a stock split was done and [the 
beneficiary] invested money himself to become a stock holder in the company as did I. He currently owns 
26.75% of the shares of this company." No further information or evidence was provided regarding the 
February 2012 stock split and the subsequent change in the petitioner's ownership structure. Based on the 
information contained in letter, the record is unclear whether the petitioner retains a qualifying 
relationship with the foreign entity as its subsidiary. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5U)(3)(C). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
V. Conclusion 
For the reasons discussed above, the matter will be remanded for review and a new decision. The director 
may issue a notice requesting any additional evidence he deems necessary in order to determine the 
petitioner's eligibility for the benefit sought. 
ORDER: The decision of the director dated May 31, 2012 is withdrawn. The matter is 
remanded 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 
revtew.