Chief Asset Manager

The appeal was dismissed primarily because the Petitioner failed to address or contest the Director's finding regarding the ability to pay the proffered wage, effectively abandoning the issue. Additionally, the Petitioner failed to submit the regulatory required evidence (federal tax returns or audited financial statements) to demonstrate financial capacity.

The motions were dismissed because the Petitioner failed to address the specific conclusions of the prior appellate decision regarding the Beneficiary's proposed employment capacity and did not establish that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. Additionally, the Petitioner did not submit new facts or documentary evidence to overcome the deficiencies concerning the claimed qualifying relationship, specifically conflicting ownership information in tax returns and an invalid stock certificate. The Petitioner's new claim of an affiliate relationship was also not sufficiently supported.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would primarily perform executive duties, lacking sufficient evidence of subordinates to handle non-executive tasks. The organizational structure and staffing levels were inconsistent and inadequate to support an executive role. Furthermore, the qualifying relationship between the U.S. and foreign entities was not proven due to a defective stock certificate and conflicting ownership information on tax returns. The Petitioner's argument for a 'functional manager' role was also rejected as an improper change to the petition's basis and lacked supporting evidence.