dismissed EB-1C Case: Business

identifying data deleted to 
pNvent clearly unwarranted 
invuioa of penonal privac} 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: APR 252012 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
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 
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, 
PerryRhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscfs.gov 
-Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a Florida corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its 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. 
In support of the Form 1-140 the petitioner submitted its own financial, corporate, and business documents as 
well as those pertaining to the beneficiary's foreign employer. The petitioner included a copy of its 
organizational chart, which depicted the beneficiary at the top of the hierarchy, followed by the company's 
vice president. The remainder of the hierarchy consisted of one salesman, a sales manager, one warehouse 
employee and one administrative employee. 
The director reviewed the petitioner's submissions and determined that the petition did not warrant approval. 
The director therefore issued a request for additional evidence (RFE) dated January 19, 2010 informing the 
petitioner of various evidentiary deficiencies. The petitioner was instructed to provide, in part, a list of the 
beneficiary'S proposed job duties and the percentage of time the beneficiary would allocate to each task. The 
petitioner was also asked to discuss the beneficiary's subordinates and to identify the people who provide the 
products or services of the business. 
The petitioner's response did not include a list of the beneficiary'S proposed job duties. Rather, the petitioner 
stated only that the beneficiary would allocate 40% of his time to purchases, 40% to staff supervision, and 
20% to sales. Although the petitioner provided brief job descriptions for the remainder of the employees 
within the petitioner's organization, no further statements were provided to further clarify the beneficiary'S 
specific role with respect to the three functions listed above. 
After reviewing the record, the director concluded that the petitioner failed to establish that the petitioner 
would employ the beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. The director therefore issued 
a decision dated March 15, 2010 denying the petition. The director found that the petitioner submitted an 
overly broad job description, which failed to specify the beneficiary'S actual daily tasks. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief in which she disputes the denial, contending that the Adjudicator's Field 
Manual instructs the director to explain the perceived discrepancy between the current adverse decision and 
prior decisions issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services with regard to the petitioner's Form 1-
129 petitions, which were approved resulting in the beneficiary being accorded nonimmigrant L-lA status. 
Counsel challenges the director's conclusion that the beneficiary would perform the petitioner's day-to-day 
duties that are associated with purchases, sales, and finances. 
The AAO finds that counsel's assertions are not persuasive and fail to overcome the director's denial. The 
petitioner's submissions have been reviewed and all relevant documentation will be fully addressed in the 
discussion below. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
Page 3 
(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. 
The primary issue to be addressed in this proceeding is the beneficiary's employment capacity in his proposed 
position with the petitioning U.S. entity. Specifically, the AAO will examine the record to determine whether 
the petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to establish that it would employ the beneficiary in the United 
States in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
Section 101 (a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 101 (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 
-Page 4 
(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. § 1101(a)(44)(B), provides: 
The term "executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization 10 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. 
Generally, when examining the executive or managerial capacity of the benefIciary, the petitioner's 
description of the benefIciary's job duties is critical, as 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), ajj'd, 905 F.2d 41 
(2d. Cir. 1990). Although the AAO considers other relevant factors, including the petitioner's organizational 
hierarchy, the benefIciary's position therein, and the petitioner's overall ability to relieve the benefIciary from 
having to primarily perform the daily operational tasks, a detailed job description is required by regulation 
and will be considered fIrst. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5). 
In the present matter, the petitioner disregarded the director's express instructions for a list of the 
benefIciary's actual daily job duties and instead listed three general functions to describe the proposed 
employment. The petitioner offered no information to convey a meaningful understanding of exactly what 
the benefIciary's role would be with respect to each function. Although the brief job descriptions that pertain 
to the remainder of the petitioner's staff indicate that the petitioner was equipped with employees who handle 
marketing, purchasing, sales, and inventory, there is absolutely no explanation as to job duties the benefIciary 
would perform or how he would supervise the staff. In light of the scant information that the petitioner 
provided about the benefIciary's proposed position, the petitioner's assertion that the benefIciary "clearly" 
falls within the defInition of executive capacity is simply not supported by the evidence of record. As noted 
previously in the director's decision, 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)). Although counsel challenged the director's citation of Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 
contending that the facts of the cited case were not analogous to those of the instant case, the holding is 
general and therefore can be widely applied to any scenario where the party with the burden of proof fails to 
provide evidence to support its assertions. 
-Page 5 
Here, the petitioner put forth general assertions regarding the beneficiary's job description, but failed to 
support those assertions with information requested by the director about the beneficiary's specific tasks. 
Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the 
petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). While other factors, such as the staffing and size of the organization, are 
also relevant, these factors by themselves would not determine the outcome in this matter. Despite the 
petitioner's small staff, it is not impossible for an organization of this size to relieve the beneficiary from 
having to primarily perform non-qualifying tasks. The petitioner has not, however, clarified the beneficiary's 
tasks within the given organization, thus precluding U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services from making 
an affIrmative determination as to the beneficiary's employment capacity. Therefore, the petition cannot be 
approved. 
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.