dismissed EB-1C Case: Apparel Manufacturing

identi- dda dakdb 
prevent ckarly -& 
invasioa of perwnl pri~cy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: - Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
SRC 06 255 50916 
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. fj 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
y~obert P. W~emann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based visa petition. The matter 
is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed the immigrant visa petition to classify the beneficiary as a multinational manager or 
executive 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 is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Nevada. The 
petitioner did not identify its specific business operations in the United States, but a submitted business 
contract identifies the petitioner as a manufacturer and supplier of hospital uniforms, gowns, formal wear, and 
sportswear. In contrast, a proposal enacted by the foreign entity addressed the beneficiary's authority to 
"supervise any food related businessles in the United States." The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary 
as its operationslfinance manager. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner had not demonstrated that the beneficiary 
would be employed by the United States entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, the petitioner challenges the director's finding, claiming that as an "employee/owner [the 
beneficiary] belongs to the executive management," and would be employed by the United States entity in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity. The petitioner submits a brief statement in support of the appeal. 
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 or managers who 
have previously worked for the firm, corporation or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary of that 
entity, and 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. 
Page 3 
The issue in this proceeding is whether the beneficiary would be employed by the United States entity in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A), provides: 
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) 
 SupeMses and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial 
employees, or manages an essential function withn the organization, or a department or 
subdivision of the organization; 
(iii) 
 Has the authority to hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel actions 
(such as promotion and leave authorization) if another employee or other employees are directly 
supervised; if no other employee is directly supervised, functions at a senior level withln the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the hnction 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. 5 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 bction of the 
organization; 
(ii) 
 Establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; 
(iii) 
 Exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-malung; and 
(iv) 
 Receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board of 
directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-140 on August 25, 2006 noting the beneficiary's proposed employment in the 
position of operationslfinance manager, during which she would hold the following responsibilities: 
To set-up office and apply all the necessary permit/licenses to start operation in Los 
Angeles, CA. Will manage the whole operation in the designated area. She will handle all 
financial operational matters, oversees [sic] daily operations, has full discretion to [sic] the 
Page 4 
hiring and firing of employees. She will handle all budgetary cost. [She] [wlill coordinate 
with the Head Office in the Philippines . . . . 
In an attached letter, dated August 18, 2006, the petitioner provided the following additional description of 
the beneficiary's proposed job duties in the United States entity: 
[Slet-up a branch in Los Angeles and apply all the necessary permits and licenses 
needed to start the operations/business as mandated by law. 
[Cloordinate and report any business development to the Board of Directors in [sic] a 
monthly basis all budget related issues. 
[Clreate specific budgetary planning to all the company's franchising ventures. 
[Rleview and sign all contracts related to franchising. 
[Alct as the overall head of the organizational structure in the Los Angeles branch. 
[Ilmplement all workers' benefit packages. 
[Elnforce all disciplinary measures and sanctions of the employees under her 
supervision. 
[Alnalyze all financial reports submitted for accuracy before presenting it to the Board. 
[Rlesponsible in [sic] hiring and firing of employees. 
[Alpprove budget for promotions and sign all cash disbursements. 
[Rlesponsible for growth and development of mid-level managers. 
[Alccountable for productivity goals, sales and revenue growth. 
[R] esponsible for daily management and productivity of department. 
Aside from all the duties and responsibilities mentioned above, she will provide leadership 
by delegating and empowering associates, recognizing and rewarding diversity and 
communicating openly with the team. As well as manage the financial reporting process to 
the Board of Directors, which will include monthly flash and actual reporting requirements, 
annual budget, quarterly forecasts and annual mid-range plan. She will also be responsible 
for the consolidation of actual budgets/forecasts which includes consolidated presentation 
packages for Senior Management. 
In addition, she will be responsible for ensuring that reporting and planning practices 
comply with company policy and will be responsible for partnering with operational senior 
management in developing business/financial models as required. Moreover, she will be 
expected to streamline the accounting and system processes specifically related to overall 
responsibilities as outlined above. 
The petitioner did not submit additional evidence of the beneficiary's position in its organization or of its 
staffing levels, but noted on the Form 1-140 that the beneficiary was one of two workers employed by the 
petitioner. 
On November 13, 2006, the director issued a request for evidence, in which she instructed the petitioner of 
the need to examine its description of job duties in order to determine the managerial or executive 
employment of the beneficiary, and directed the petitioner to submit the following evidence with respect to 
this issue: (1) a detailed organizational chart of the United States entity depicting "the names, job titles and 
specific job duties of the beneficiary and the employees directly managed by the beneficiary"; (2) copies of 
Page 5 
the petitioner's Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Forms W-2 issued during 2005; (3) a copy of the petitioner's 
2005 federal income tax return; and (4) copies of its quarterly tax reports. 
The record does not contain a letter from the petitioner responding the director's request for evidence, 
however, additional evidence appears to have been submitted in response to the director's notice. The limited 
evidence submitted with respect to the beneficiary's proposed employment in the United States includes the 
minutes from a February 28, 2006 special legislative meeting held by the foreign entity in which the 
beneficiary was recommended to occupy the position of operations manager for international affairs of the 
United States company and authorized "to open[,] franchise or supervise food related businessles in the 
United States." In an attached March 3, 2006 resolution, the foreign entity approved the beneficiary's 
authority "to transact and deal with businessles in order to further enhance [the petitioner's] operations." The 
record is devoid of any additional evidence of the beneficiary's proposed employment in the United States. 
The director issued a decision on February 21, 2007, in which she concluded that the petitioner had failed to 
establish the beneficiary's employment in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. The director 
considered the outline of the beneficiary's job duties, and concluded that they do not fall within the statutory 
definitions of "managerial capacity" and "executive capacity." The director noted that the beneficiary would 
be one of two employees and that the petitioner had indicated a zero balance in gross and net income on the 
Form 1-140, and concluded that "it is questionable as to [whether] the beneficiary would devote the majority 
of time to performing primarily managerial or executive job duties." The director further determined that the 
petitioner had not "established that the beneficiary would be relieved from personally performing non- 
qualifying tasks by [a] subordinate staff." Consequently, the director denied the petition. 
The petitioner filed the instant appeal on March 20, 2007, contending that following a review of the record the 
director erroneously concluded that the beneficiary would not be employed as a manager or executive. In an 
attached statement, the petitioner addresses additional job duties of the beneficiary, including "planning, 
financial management, branching out and reporting to annual meetings of the Corporation . . . ." The 
petitioner states: "[Tlhe Beneficiary is the person delegated by the Board of Officers to perform such tasks 
and there is no [sic] any other person more qualified for this position other than the Beneficiary as she is 
holding [sic] this executive position for more than 8 years in their branch abroad." The petitioner further 
contends that the beneficiary's role as an "employeelowner" of the petitioning entity establishes her 
employment in "executive management" and in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
Upon review, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary would be employed by the United 
States entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
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.F.R. 
 204.50)(5). 
The job descriptions offered by the petitioner do not clarify the position to be held by the beneficiary in the 
United States entity or her proposed employment capacity. The AAO first notes that the petitioner did not 
identify its business purpose or operations in Los Angeles, the proposed work location of the beneficiary. 
This lack of clarification inhibits the analysis of how the beneficiary would be functioning in the United 
States entity, as it is unclear what type of "operation" the beneficiary would be managing or what daily 
functions are associated with the petitioner's business. Likewise, the job responsibilities outlined in the 
petitioner's August 18, 2006 letter are ambiguous as it is unclear what tasks the beneficiary would perform in 
Page 6 
the "business development" or "daily management" of the petitioning organization. Case law dictates that a 
petitioner's blanket claim of employing the beneficiary as a manager or executive without a description of 
how, when, where and with whom the beneficiary's job duties occurred is insufficient for establishing 
employment in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 
1 103, 1 108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), afyd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Additionally, due to the limited evidence provided with respect to the petitioner's staffing levels, many of the 
beneficiary's proposed job responsibilities are not plausible. The petitioner represented on the Form 1-140 
that the beneficiary would be one of two employees in the United States. The record suggests that the 
petitioner may have an office in the State of Nevada that is occupied by the company's president, presumably 
the other United States worker. Although requested, the petitioner neglected to address its staffing levels or 
provide evidence, such as an organizational chart, IRS Forms W-2, or its quarterly wage reports. This 
information is especially relevant to the analysis of the beneficiary's employment capacity, as a large portion 
of the beneficiary's purported managerial or executive authority is based on the supervision of a subordinate 
staff. Specifically, the petitioner asserted in its August 18, 2006 letter that the beneficiary would: "act as the 
overall head of the organizational structure"; "enforce all disciplinary measures and sanctions of the 
employees under her supervision"; implement employees' benefit packages; hire and fire employees; assist in 
the growth and development of mid-level managers; delegate responsibilities to associates; "communicat[e] 
openly with the team"; and oversee the daily management and productivity of the organization's departments. 
The petitioner's failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds 
for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. €j 103.2(b)(14). Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of 
course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of 
the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 59 1 (BIA 1988). 
Taking into consideration what appears to be a limited subordinate staff, the record, as presently constituted, 
suggests that the beneficiary would be performing non-managerial or non-executive tasks of the business 
rather than exercising primarily managerial or executive authority over the business functions. For example, 
based on the submitted job descriptions, the beneficiary would be responsible for such tasks as: handling 
"financial operational matters" and "budgetary costs," applying for business permits and licenses, analyzing 
financial reports, and managing such financial activities as the "monthly flash and actual" financial reports, 
annual budget, and quarterly forecasts. Absent a subordinate staff to perform the tasks associated with the 
day-to-day calculation of the petitioner's financial figures and the preparation of financial reports, it is not 
plausible that the beneficiary would "manage the financial reporting process," the petitioner's finance 
function, or "the whole operation," as claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
beneficiary would be relieved from personally performing the daily non-qualifying functions of the business. 
When analyzing whether the beneficiary would be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity, 
it is reasonable for the AAO to consider the lack of a subordinate staff that would perform the non-managerial 
or non-executive tasks of the business. See Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F.Supp.2d. 25, 29 (D.D.C. 
2003) (holding that the INS' finding that the beneficiary did not work in a primarily managerial or executive 
capacity was "bolstered by the absence of evidence that a sufficient 'subordinate staff will 'relieve her from 
performing managerial [ ] duties' "). The AAO notes that an employee who "primarily" performs the tasks 
necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not considered to be "primarily" employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity. See sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that one 
"primarily" perform the enumerated managerial or executive duties); see also Matter of Church Scientology 
Int 'l., 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm. 1988). 
Page 7 
Furthermore, the petitioner's blanket claim on appeal that the beneficiary's role as an "employee/owner" of the 
petitioning entity qualifies the beneficiary for classification as "executive management" is misplaced. The 
AAO notes that the petitioner has not established the beneficiary as an owner of the United States entity. 
Regardless, whether the beneficiary is an owner of the petitioning entity is not determinative of whether she 
would occupy a primarily managerial or executive position. The managerial or executive title assigned by the 
petitioner to the beneficiary is not, by itself, indicative of the capacity in which the beneficiary would be 
employed. 
Based on the foregoing discussion, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary would be 
employed by the United States entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
Beyond the decision of the director, two additional issues that may be considered together herein are: (I) 
whether the beneficiary was employed by the foreign entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity; 
and (2) whether the petitioner possessed a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer at 
the time of filing the immigrant visa petition. 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act states that in the three years prior to the beneficiary's classification and 
admission into the United States as a multinational manager or executive, the beneficiary must have been 
employed abroad for at least one year by the same employer, or a parent, affliate or subsidiary of the 
petitioning entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. Likewise, to establish a qualifying 
relationship under the Act and the regulations, the petitioner must show that the beneficiary's foreign 
employer and the proposed United States employer are the same employer (i.e. a United States entity with a 
foreign office) or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See generally 5 203(b)(l)(C) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1153(b)(l)(C); see also 8 C.F.R. tj 204.50)(2) (providing definitions of the terms "affiliate" 
and "subsidiary"). 
Here, the petitioner states in its August 18, 2006 letter that the beneficiary was employed as the 
financial/operation manager "of the corporation's subsidiary company in the Philippines as well as [ ] the 
treasurer of its overall operations." The petitioner did not identify the name of the "subsidiary company in the 
Philippines." However, based on the majority of evidence submitted, it appears that the foreign "subsidiary 
company" is C&F International (Philippines) Inc. In contrast, the record also contains: an organizational 
chart of C&F International (Philippines) Inc. on which the beneficiary is identified as the operations manager 
of the Philippine company Quicktronic Enterprise; copies of Quicktronic Enterprise's statements of account 
bearing the beneficiary's name as the preparer; and copies of purchase orders signed by the beneficiary on 
behalf of Quicktronics Enterprise. Also, Form G-325A, a supplement to the beneficiary's Form 1-485 
application to adjust status, indicates that the beneficiary was employed as the supervisor of Quicktronic 
Enterprise from July 1998 through the date of the filing on April 10, 2006. The above-noted business 
documents of Quicktronics Enterprise are dated in various months during the years 2003 through 2005. The 
AAO notes that the petitioner represented on the Form 1-140 that the beneficiary entered the United States on 
March 26, 2006 as a B-1 visitor. As the petitioner did not address the existence of a corporate relationship 
between C&F International (Philippines) Inc. and Quicktronic Enterprise, or more importantly, the existence 
of a qualifying relationship between the petitioning entity and the two foreign organizations, the AAO cannot 
conclude that the beneficiary was employed abroad for the requisite time period as a manager or executive by 
the same employer, or a parent, affiliate or subsidiary of the petitioning entity. 
Page 8 
Moreover, the petitioner did not submit evidence that the beneficiary occupied a primarily managerial or 
executive position while employed in the Philippines. The AAO notes that the petitioner neglected to submit 
evidence in response to the director's request for a description of the "specific job duties" performed by the 
beneficiary in the foreign entity. Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry 
shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 4 103.2(b)(14). The two organizational charts provided of 
the company C&F International (Philippines) Inc. are not sufficient to demonstrate the beneficiary's former 
employment overseas in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. Considered together, the two 
organizational charts merely depict the beneficiary as having occupied the positions of treasurer and 
operations manager and as having supervised an assistant administrative manager and assistant operations 
manager, but do not provide additional evidence corroborating the employment of subordinate workers or of 
the employees' related job duties. 
The definitions of executive and managerial capacity have two parts. First, the petitioner must show that the 
beneficiary performs the high level responsibilities that are specified in the definitions. Second, the petitioner 
must prove that the beneficiary primarily performs these specified responsibilities and does not spend a 
majority of his or her time on day-to-day functions. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (Table), 
1991 WL 144470 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991). Additionally, case law dictates that a petitioner's blanket claim of 
employing the beneficiary as a manager or executive without a description of how, when, where and with 
whom the beneficiary's job duties occurred is insufficient for establishing employment in a primarily 
managerial or executive capacity. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 1108. The limited record of 
proceeding does not satisfy these requirements. 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) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 
1972)). 
Based on the foregoing discussion, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that: (1) it possessed a qualifying 
relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer; and (2) the beneficiary was employed by the foreign 
entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. Accordingly, the petition will be denied for these two 
additional reasons. 
A third issue not addressed by the director is whether the petitioner was doing business in the United States 
for at least one year prior to filing the immigrant visa petition as required in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.50)(3)(i)(D). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.50)(2) defines "doing business" as: 
[Tlhe regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or services by a firm, 
corporation, or other entity and does not include the mere presence of an agent or office. 
The record contains documentation of the petitioner's incorporation in the State of Nevada on July 26, 2001, 
as well as evidence that the petitioner filed its annual list of officers and directors with the State in 2005 and 
2006. The petitioner also submitted a copy of a March 15, 2003 contract entered into by the petitioner as a 
manufacturer and supplier of uniforms and clothing. The contract identifies the petitioner's location as Los 
Angeles, California. In its August 16, 2006 letter, the petitioner suggests that the beneficiary will organize an 
office in the State of California. As noted previously, the proposed business operations of the petitioning 
entity are not clearly defined by the petitioner. Nonetheless, the record is devoid of evidence, such as sales 
Page 9 
invoices, receipts, and corporate federal income tax returns, demonstrating that the petitioner engaged in the 
"regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or services" in the United States during August 
25, 2005 and August 25, 2006, the date on which the immigrant visa petition was filed. The limited evidence 
offered by the petitioner suggests that the United States company may have been engaged in the supply of 
hospital garments and clothing during 2003, but does not establish that the petitioner has been doing business 
for the requisite amount of time during the period in question. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. For this additional reason, the petition will be denied. 
A final issue not addressed by the director is whether the petitioner demonstrated its ability to pay the 
beneficiary's proffered weekly wage of $840 at the time the petition was filed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(g)(2) states: 
Any petition filed by or for any employment-based immigrant which requires an offer of 
employment must be accompanied by evidence that the prospective United States employer 
has the ability to pay the proffered wage. The petitioner must demonstrate this ability at the 
time the priority date is established and continuing until the beneficiary obtains lawful 
permanent residence. Evidence of this ability shall be either in the form of copies of annual 
reports, federal tax returns, or audited financial statements. 
As mentioned in connection with the issues discussed above, the petitioner neglected to submit 
documentation related to its business, such as federal income tax returns, annual reports or audited financial 
statements, which would be essential to determining the company's ability to pay the beneficiary's proffered 
wage. Moreover, there is no evidence that the beneficiary was previously employed by the petitioner. Absent 
relevant documentary evidence, the AAO cannot determine whether the petitioner possessed the ability to pay 
the beneficiary's proposed annual salary of $43,680. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 
22 I&N Dec. at 165. Again, the petition will be denied for this additional reason. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by 
the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit 
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.