dismissed EB-1C Case: Airline

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: - Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
LIN 04 028 52622 
Date: JUN 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. Cj 1 153(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 
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 appeal will be dismissed. 
Based on the petitioner's support letter, dated November 6, 2003, the petitioner claims to be a subsidiary of 
Asiana Airlines. The petitioner operates as an airline company and seeks to employ the beneficiary in its U.S. 
branch as a maintenance 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. fj 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. The director determined that the 
petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the United 
States in a qualifying capacity and denied the petition. 
On appeal, counsel disputes the director's findings and submits a brief along with additional evidence in 
support of his arguments. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(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): 
(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. 
The language of the statute is specific in limiting this provision to only those executives and managers who 
have previously worked for a firm, corporation or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary of that entity, 
and who are coming to the United States to work for the same entity, or its affiliate or subsidiary. 
A United States employer may file a petition on Form 1-140 for classification of an alien under section 
203(b)(l)(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. No labor certification is required for this 
classification. The prospective employer in the United States must furnish a job offer in the form of a 
statement which indicates that the alien is to be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity. Such a statement must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the alien. 
The director addressed two related issues in this proceeding: 1) whether the beneficiary was employed abroad 
for the requisite time period in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity; and 2) whether the beneficiary 
would be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1 101(a)(44)(A), provides: 
Page 3 
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 promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee 
is directly 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. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1101(a)(44)(B), provides: 
The term "executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily-- 
(i) directs the management of the organization or a major component or function 
of the organization; 
(ii) establishes the goals and policies of the 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. 
In support of the initial petition, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary's duties abroad included managing 
and supervising 50 purportedly professional employees at the petitioner's Korean affiliate. In a letter dated 
October 30, 2003, the petitioner provided the following statements regarding the beneficiary's proposed duties 
in the United States: 
He monitors and administrates management of the maintenance department of [the] 
Anchorage Airport Maintenance Dept. The most important duty is handling a variety of day- 
to[-]day actions including assessing manpower requirements, enforcing regulation[s] and 
rules, assigning personnel, consulting with other managers and subcontractors and deciding 
maintenance requirements and priorities. Also, overseeing, directing and coordinating the 
procurement of maintenance equipment, parts, and supplies. Directs and performs QA on the 
technical library and maintenance equipment. Enforces numerous safety programs including 
fuels and the handling of hazardous materials. Reports all emergencies and potential 
maintenance delays to headquarters and makes on the spot decisions where necessary. 
Oversees, directs, and coordinates maintenance procedures to ensure compliance with 
corporate and local regulations and standards. 
He participates to review current policies and procedures and develops appropriate plans 
necessary to ensure aircraft safety. [The beneficiary] is not a first line supervisor and does 
not perform manual labor. [The petitioner] has sub-contractors who performs [sic] first line 
supervisory duty [sic]. [The beneficiary] is a key factor in the success of Anchorage Airport 
operations. [His] principal duty is ensuring the standardization of technical support and 
service based on corporate rules and local rules and handles a variety of day-to[-]day action 
in Anchorage Airport Maintenance Dept. 
In a separate list of duties, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary performs additional duties, including the 
' following: "accompanie[s] flight crew to determine and record system performance during test flights;" 
"set[s] up and operate[s] ground test equipment to perform functional tests;" "oversees record keeping, writes 
reports as required;" and "[dlirects and performs QA on the technical library and maintenance equipment and 
tools." 
The petitioner also submitted organizational charts for the foreign and U.S. entities illustrating each entity's 
hierarchical structure. The foreign entity's organizational chart shows the beneficiary as a third-tier manager 
subordinate to the senior manager. The chart indicates that the beneficiary's immediate subordinates include 
four assistant managers. The petitioner's organizational chart also illustrates the beneficiary as a third-tier 
manager with a senior manager as his immediate subordinate. The chart indicates that the beneficiary 
oversees the work of 49 people, but does not identify any of the subordinates by name or position title. 
On June 2, 2004, the director issued a request for additional evidence instructing the petitioner to submit a 
statement from an authorized official of the petitioning entity describing the beneficiary's employment abroad 
and his proposed employed in the Unlted States. The petitioner was asked to include dates of employment, 
job titles, specific job duties, types of employees supervised, and the title and level of authority of the 
beneficiary's immediate supervisor within each respective entity. The director also instructed the petitioner to 
specify the amount of time devoted to the listed duties. 
The petitioner replied with a letter dated July 20, 2004. Despite the director's request, the petitioner failed to 
include a description of the beneficiary's overseas job duties. In regard to the beneficiary's proposed duties, 
the petitioner provided the following description: 
[The beneficiary's] most important and principal duty is the standardization of technical 
support and service based on corporate and local rules. He handles a variety of day[-]to[-]day 
actions within the Anchorage Airport Maintenance Dept. He represents the corporate office 
and looks after the corporation's best interest while strictly enforcing numerous accident- 
prevention safety programs. He plans, directs, describes, and coordinates all maintenance 
activates [sic]. He is familiar with standard concepts, corporate practices, and procedures. 
He ensures that contractor costs stay within budget. He authorizes, issues, and approves 
certificates of release. He also participates in department policy making. He determines the 
scope of sub-contractors' work. He relies on his judgment from extensive experience to plan 
and accomplish goals. He ensures that the plant follows Federal, State, and company 
environmental and regulatory requirements and guidelines. He consults with other managers 
to determine the causes of accidents and suggests remedies to the corporate office. Also, he 
also travels as required. 
The petitioner further indicated that the beneficiary does not have ultimate authority to hire and fire 
employees, but can recommend such actions to the human resources department. The petitioner failed to 
specify the amount of time the beneficiary would spend carrying out each of the listed duties. 
On August 25, 2004, the director denied the petition noting that the petitioner failed to provide any of the 
requested information regarding the beneficiary's overseas job duties. The director also determined that the 
petitioner provided an insufficient description of the beneficiary's proposed duties, thus failing to convey an 
understanding of what the beneficiary would be doing on a daily basis. The director further noted that the 
petitioner opted not to provide a breakdown of time the beneficiary would spend performing his duties in the 
United States. 
On appeal, counsel addresses the issue of the beneficiary's overseas job duties, claiming that he carried out 
job duties similar to those he currently carries out in the United States. However, the regulation states that the 
petitioner shall submit additional evidence as the director, in his or her discretion, may deem necessary. The 
purpose of the request for evidence is to elicit further information that clarifies whether eligibility for the 
benefit sought has been established as of the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. $4 103.2(b)(8) and (12). 
The failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying 
the petition. 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(14). 
Where, as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an 
opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on 
appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 
(BIA 1988). If, as claimed by counsel, the beneficiary was performing the same duties abroad as he would 
perform in the United States, this information should have been disclosed in response to the director's request 
for evidence. Id. Under the circumstances, the AAO need not and does not consider the sufficiency of the 
evidence submitted on appeal. Consequently, any information regarding the beneficiary's overseas duties as 
provided on appeal will not be considered. 
Counsel also asserts that the director erred in concluding that the petitioner willingly declined to submit a 
time breakdown of the beneficiary's proposed duties. Counsel claims that the petitioner may have 
misunderstood the significance of director's request. However, the record indicates that the request for 
evidence was sent to both the petitioner and its counsel, who was assisting the petitioner and was able to 
explain the request for evidence and the significance of the requested information. Furthermore, the fact that 
the beneficiary's working hours vary with the daily flight schedules is irrelevant with respect to the 
petitioner's ability (or inability) to provide a breakdown of time the beneficiary would spend performing his 
respective duties. Contrary to counsel's interpretation of the director's request, the goal was to provide 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) with a description of the beneficiary's specific job duties and to 
assign a unit of time the beneficiary would spend performing his respective duties. Regardless of the varying 
flight schedules, the petitioner should be able to itemize the beneficiary's duties and quantify, either on a 
weekly or daily basis, how much time the beneficiary spent performing each of his stated duties. The fact that 
the flight schedules change on a daily business simply means that the beneficiary may work different hours 
from one day to another. This should not have prevented the petitioner from providing CIS with a precise list 
of duties. 
In examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, CIS will look first to the petitioner's 
description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5Cj)(5). In the instant case the petitioner was informed in the 
request for evidence that the description of the beneficiary's proposed job duties is too general to convey an 
understanding of exactly what the beneficiary would be doing on a daily basis and how much of his time 
would be spent on qualifying tasks versus the non-qualifying ones. Accordingly, the director's request for 
evidence was a proper attempt to elicit a more detailed and comprehensive description of the beneficiary's 
proposed job duties. The claim that the petitioner's flight schedule changes daily does not adequately address 
the issue of the beneficiary's daily activities. 
The petitioner addresses this deficiency on appeal by submitting the following list of the beneficiary's day-to- 
day duties as a maintenance manager at Inchon Airport, which counsel claims involve the same duties as it 
does at the Anchorage Station: 
Maintain, organize and keep track of logs and reports of each flight assigned. 
Maintain, organize and keep track of administrative documents. 
Consistent correspondence with head quarters [sic] and office of departure and arrival, to 
relay and request proper maintenance reports and information. 
Maintain top condition and safety of company fleets and vehicles. 
Check flight reports of pilots during flights. 
Delegate responsibilities and tasks to subordinates of each division. 
Order the proper division of mechanics to prepare to address specific reported problem before 
landing of flight to ensure time efficiency. 
List and order and [sic] parts and equipments needed. 
Return, dispose, [and] allocate, [sic] defective and no longer used parts and equipments. 
Check qualifications of each mechanic andlor specialist working in department, divisions and 
sub-divisions [sic]. 
Nominate . . . the new Employee of the Month. 
Make suggestions to headquarters of special rewards given to employees in [the] department. 
Check identification of ALL who approach aircraft and avoid foreign contact during 
maintenance checks and procedures. 
Check exterior of airplanes [and] delegate maintenance matters and assignments to sub- 
ordinates [sic]. 
Check engine of airplane and ensure and oversee proper maintenance procedures are being 
enforced. 
Check cockpit computers, indicators and warning systems to ensure sound mechanical 
operations. 
Conduct briefs with sub-ordinates [sic] of each division in the department and crew of each 
flight assigned, on maintenance matters, notifications, new regulations, precautions, 
procedures and updates. 
Constantly log and report all actions taken to address maintenance matter[s] to destination 
office and next shift manager. 
While the petitioner has clearly complied with the director's request for a more detailed job description, a 
review of the beneficiary's proposed list of tasks suggests that the beneficiary would primarily perform the 
petitioner's daily operational tasks and oversee the work of non-professional subordinate employees. It is 
noted that an employee who primarily performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide 
services is not considered to be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. Mutter of Church 
Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm. 1988). While tasks such as maintaining logs and 
administrative documents, keeping inventory of necessary equipment, and checking the planes for 
maintenance and mechanical soundness are all necessary tasks, they are not managerial or executive. Rather, 
they are the petitioner's daily operational tasks. While the petitioner indicates that the beneficiary would have 
a subordinate staff, there is no indication that this is a staff of supervisory, managerial, or professional 
employees. In fact, the petition has not submitted evidence that it employs any personnel subordinate to the 
beneficiary; it only claims its use of subcontractors to perform this work. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Mutter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Mutter of Treusure Craft of Culiforniu, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
On review, the record as presently constituted is not persuasive in demonstrating that the beneficiary was 
employed abroad and would be employed by the petitioner in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
The record indicates that a preponderance of the beneficiary's duties with the petitioning entity would be 
directly providing the services of the business. The petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary will 
be primarily supervising a subordinate staff of professional, managerial, or supervisory personnel or that he 
would otherwise be relieved from performing non-qualifying duties. Rather, the record suggests that the 
beneficiary has been hired to specifically perfonn the non-qualifying daily operational tasks of the petitioning 
entity. The record does not demonstrate that the beneficiary primarily manages an essential function of the 
organization or operates at a senior level within an organizational hierarchy. Based on the lack evidence 
regarding the beneficiary's duties overseas, the AAO cannot affirmatively determine that the beneficiary 
primarily performed qualifiing managerial or executive duties abroad. While the petitioner has submitted 
Page 8 
sufficient information regarding the beneficiary's proposed duties, the record suggests that a majority of those 
duties would be of a non-qualifying nature. For this reason, the petition may not be approved. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligbility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 29 1 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 136 1. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.