dismissed EB-1C Case: Business

identifying data deleted t~ 
prevent clearly unwa~ 
invasion of persona\ pnvac) 
f\J81lC CCNY. 
DATE: FEB 1 0 2012 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
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. 
The petitioner is a California corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its vice president. 
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. 
The director denied the petition based on the determination that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. Additionally, while the director did 
not issue an affirmative fmding with regard to the employment capacity of the beneficiary's proposed position 
with the U.S. entity, he noted that there was a discrepancy between the position description and the 
petitioner's organizational chart. Namely, the director observed that while the beneficiary's proposed job 
description includes supervising the marketing department, the petitioner's organizational chart did not 
actually include either a marketing department or marketing personnel. 
On appeal, counsel disputes the director's decision in an appellate brief in which he attempts to supplement 
the deficient job description by providing additional information about the beneficiary's employment abroad. 
The petitioner also provided supplemental documentation in the form of an employment letter, which 
addresses the beneficiary's employment abroad, and organizational charts for the U.S. and foreign entities. 
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)(1)(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 primary issue in this proceeding is whether the petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to establish that 
the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying 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) 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 10 1 (a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 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 ofthe organization. 
In support of the Form I-140, __ in her capacity as CEO of the petitioning entity, submitted a 
statement dated April 30, 200~discussed the petitioner's corporate composition as well as the 
beneficiary's employment abroad and in the United States. The petitioner also provided a statement from. 
_dated January 17, 2005 confirming the beneficiary's dates of employment abroad, a brief list of the 
Page 4 
beneficiary's proposed job responsibilities with the U.S. entity, the petitioner's corporate documents, the 
petitioner's tax and financial documents for 2005 and 2006, business invoices showing sales made b~ 
in November and December 2006, lease, and the foreign entity's 
partnership deed and export documents for various dates in 2003. 
On February 4, 2008, the director issued a request for evidence (RFE), which informed the petitioner that the 
record was lacking sufficient evidence showing that the petitioner meets relevant statutory and regulatory 
criteria. Accordingly, the petitioner was instructed to provide, in part, a supplemental job description, 
including a specific discussion of the beneficiary's job duties with the foreign entity. The petitioner was also 
asked to provide an organizational chart showing the beneficiary's position abroad. 
In a statement dated March 13, 2008, counsel provided a list of the various documents that were being 
submitted in response to the director's RFE. The response included a statement from the petitioner dated 
March 12, 2008, organizational charts for the U.S. and foreign entities, and tax and wage documents from 
2002-2007 pertaining to the petitioner and its employees. 
On July 28, 2009 the director issued an adverse decision denying the petition based on the finding that the 
petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity. The director noted that the organizational charts that were submitted in response to the RFE did not 
include the beneficiary. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief in which he asserts that the beneficiary was promoted to the position of 
general manager in the year 2000 during the course of her employment with the petitioning entity. Counsel 
states that the beneficiary was responsible for directing and coordinating personnel-related activities, 
interviewing and selecting employees, entering into contracts with independent contractors, approving 
product designs, and reviewing and approving purchase invoices. Counsel further states that the beneficiary 
prepared a company manual for employee recruitment and training and rewrote numerous contracts after 
consulting with management and attorneys. In a supplemental statement dated September 23, 2009 from the 
foreign entity's CEO, the beneficiary's foreign employment was said to include attending meetings with the 
managerial committee, with the board, and with shareholders; helping to expand the business; and improving 
the company's customer base. 
With regard to the foreign entity's organizational chart, counsel explains that the petitioner misunderstood the 
director's request and therefore submitted organizational charts that reflected the foreign entity's 
organizational structure at the time the RFE was issued. The petitioner therefore now submits a supplemental 
organizational chart that purportedly reflects the foreign entity's organizational hierarchy as of April 2002, 
which was directly prior to the beneficiary's departure from her position with the foreign entity in order to 
commence her employment with the petitioner. The organizational chart shows the beneficiary in the position 
of general manager, which is directly subordinate to the entity's two partners, •••••••••• 
_ The chart also shows that the beneficiary's subordinates included a production manager with two 
subordinate production designers, a marketing manager with no subordinates, and a finance manager with two 
subordinate accountants. It is noted that the petitioner did not provide any of the beneficiary's subordinates' 
job responsibilities as previously requested in the RFE. Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a 
material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.2(b )(14). 
Page 5 
After reviewing counsel's brief and all relevant submissions that pertain to the beneficiary's employment 
abroad, the AAO finds that the supporting documents fail to establish that the beneficiary was employed 
abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
In examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO finds that the description of 
the beneficiary's job duties is a key element. Published case law supports the emphasis that has been placed 
on a detailed job description, finding that the actual duties themselves reveal the true nature of the 
employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. 
Cir. 1990). As such, reciting the beneficiary's vague job responsibilities or broadly-cast business objectives 
is not sufficient as this general information fails to convey a meaningful understanding of the specific tasks 
the beneficiary performed on a daily basis keeping in mind that the petitioner must establish that the primary 
portion of the beneficiary's time was allocated to tasks within a qualifying 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). 
In the present matter, the petitioner has repeatedly provided documents that give only general information 
about the beneficiary's foreign employment. Thus, while the AAO is able to gauge a certain sense of the 
beneficiary's discretionary authority within the foreign organization, no meaningful insight can be gained as 
to the beneficiary's specific daily tasks. For instance, no tasks were provided to explain how precisely the 
beneficiary directed and coordinated personnel-related activity. Based on the organizational chart describing 
the foreign organization, the hierarchy appears to be composed of numerous non-supervisory and non­
professional workers. It is therefore highly critical that the petitioner articulate, with sufficient specificity, the 
beneficiary'S involvement with those non-supervisory and non-professional workers in order to determine 
whether the tasks the beneficiary performed in association with her personnel-related responsibilities were 
within a managerial or executive capacity. The AAO is also unable to determine how the beneficiary'S role in 
selecting and interviewing prospective employees is anything other than a human resources responsibility. 
Aside from relaying the beneficiary'S discretionary authority, employee recruitment does not fit the statutory 
criteria for managerial or executive capacity. The AAO is similarly skeptical of the qualifying nature of the 
beneficiary's tasks associated with preparing the foreign entity's recruitment and training manual. Without 
further explanation, the job duties associated with preparing tutorial material for the foreign entity appear to 
be operational tasks that are necessary to produce a product or to provide services. It is noted that any 
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 a/Church Scientology Intn 'I., 19 I&N Dec. 593,604 (Comm'r 1988). 
With regard to the beneficiary's job description, the record is unclear as to the specific tasks the beneficiary 
performed in her effort to help expand the foreign entity's business and build its customer base. There is an 
underlying indication that the beneficiary may have performed certain marketing-related tasks that would not 
be deemed as tasks of a qualifying managerial or executive nature. 
Although the foreign entity's organizational chart that was submitted on appeal depicts the beneficiary at an 
elevated position within the staffing hierarchy, the AAO is unable to match the chart with the list of the 
beneficiary'S assigned job responsibilities. In other words, the job duties fail to expound on what the chart 
seemingly indicates is a managerial role in which the beneficiary supervised a production manager, a 
marketing manager, and a fmance manager. Simply creating a chart that illustrates different management 
Page 6 
levels is not sufficient without a detailed list of the job duties explaining precisely what tasks the beneficiary 
performed, how she functioned within the organizational hierarchy, and how the beneficiary's subordinates 
functioned to relieve the beneficiary from having to spend her time performing primarily non-qualifying 
tasks. The petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity. On the basis of this conclusion, the instant petition cannot be approved. 
Furthermore, the record does not support a fmding of eligibility based on additional grounds that were not 
previously addressed in the director's decision. 
First, the AAO finds that neither the beneficiary's U.S. job description nor the petitioner's organizational 
chart establishes that the beneficiary's proposed employment in the United States would be within a 
qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
Additionally, the record does not contain sufficient evidence to establish that the petitioner meets the 
regulatory criteria discussed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(D), which requires the petitioner to establish that it 
had been doing business for at least one year prior to filing the Form 1-140. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(j)(2) states that doing business means "the 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 petitioner originally claimed that it has created three separate retail retail outlets that sell 
Indian garments and one medical supply store doing business of which 
currently operate under the guise of the petitioning entity. The petitioner also provided numerous sales invoices 
issued b~ in the course of doing business. The record, however, is devoid of any evidence to establish that 
the medical supply operation is part of the petitioner's corporate operation. Rather, the record contains a 
photocopy o~usiness lease, which names two individuals rather than the petitioner as the tenant. The 
lease indicates that the two signing parties operate under the name This document 
indicates tha~ may be a sole proprietorship and while the sole proprietorship may share common ownership 
with the petitioning entity, there is no indication that _ is part of the petitioning entity as claimed as no 
evidence has been submitted to corroborate the petitioner's claim. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of Sojjici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)). The record does not contain any other evidence to suggest that the 
petitioner meets the requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(D). 
Lastly, the record lacks evidence to establish that the foreign entity continues to do business, thus indicating 
that the petitioner may no longer be a multinational entity. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2) defines 
"multinational" as the qualifying entity, or its affiliate, or subsidiary, which conducts business in two or more 
countries, one of which is the United States. Although the petitioner provided evidence to show that the 
foreign entity was doing business in 2003, there is no evidence to establish that the foreign entity was doing 
business at the time the petition was filed and continues to do business to the present day. 
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 Sollane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004)(noting that the AAO reviews 
Page 7 
appeals on a de novo basis). Therefore, based on the additional grounds of ineligibility discussed above, this 
petition cannot be approved. 
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. § 1361. The petitioner has not 
sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.