dismissed EB-1C Case: Business

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U. S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOMce(AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve.N.w, MS2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: DEC 2 0 2012 OFFICE:NEBRASKASERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor AlienWorkerasaMultinationalExecutiveorManagerPursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefmdthedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase. All of thedocuments
relatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believethe law wasinappropriatelyappliedby us in reachingour decision,or you haveadditional
information that you wish to have considered,you may file a motion to reconsideror a motion to reopenin
accordancewith the instructionson Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha requestcanbe foundat 8 C,F.R.§ 103.5.Do not file any motion
directlywith the AAO. Pleasebeawarethat8C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthatanymotionmustbefiled
within30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseekstoreconsiderorreopen.
Thankyou,
RonRosenberg
ActingChief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION:Thepreferencevisa petitionwas deniedby the Director,NebraskaServiceCenter.The
matteris nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)onappeal.Theappealwill bedismissed.
Thepetitioneris aCaliforniacorporationthatseeksto employthebeneficiaryin theUnitedStatesasits vice
president. Accordingly,the petitionerendeavorsto classify the beneficiaryas an employment-based
immigrantpursuantto section203(b)(1)(C)of the ImmigrationandNationalityAct (the Act), 8U.S.C.
§ 1153(b)(1)(C),asamultinationalexecutiveormanager.
In supportof theFormI-140thepetitionersubmitteda statementdatedAugust23,2010,whichcontained
informationpertainingto thepetitioner'seligibility. Thepetitionerbrieflydiscussedthebeneficiary'shistory
with thepetitioner'sforeignparententityandprovideda generaldescriptionof thebeneficiary'sproposed
employmentwith thepetitioningentity,statingthatthebeneficiarywouldsetuppoliciesincollaborationwith
thepetitioner'spresident,studytheAmericanmarketto setbusinessobjectives,exercisehishiringandfiring
authority,review financialandotherreportsin orderto makeinvestmentdecisions,controlthe company
budget,and developrelationshipswith key customers,commercialbuyers,and industryleaders. The
petitioneralsoprovideddocumentaryevidencein theformof business,corporate,andtaxdocuments.
Thedirectorreviewedthepetitioner'ssubmissionsanddeterminedthatthepetitiondid notwarrantapprovaL
Thedirectorthereforeissueda requestfor evidence(RFE)datedJanuary13,2011informingthepetitionerof
various evidentiarydeficiencies,including the petitioner'ssubmissionof insufficientjob descriptions
pertainingto thebeneficiary'sforeignandproposedemployment.Thedirectorinstructedthepetitionerto
providefurtherevidenceto establishthatthebeneficiaryqualifiesfor classificationof multinationalexecutive
underthestatutorydefinition.
Thepetitioner'sresponseincludeda statementfromcounsel,datedApril 4, 2011,in whichcounseladdressed
the RFE by paraphrasingthe statutorydefinition of executivecapacity,claiming that the beneficiary's
proposedposition in the United States"is genuinelythat of an executivewho will direct the general
developmentandmanagementof the company,establishgoalsandpoliciesandexercisewide latitudein
discretionarydecisionmaking." Counselassuredthatthebeneficiaryis a high-levelexecutiveandreliedon
the beneficiary's ernployment verification letter and salary abroad as valid evidence of the beneficiary's
qualifying employment. The petitioner also provided additional supporting evidencealong with counsel's
responsestatement. Suchevidenceincluded the foreign entity's bank documents,annualreport, andevidence
of its ownership of the petitioning entity, as well as the petitioner's balancesheetand income statementfor
2010, its 2010 tax return,and evidenceof the foreign entity's transferof the funds usedto purchasethe
petitioner'sstock.
After consideringthe petitioner'sresponse,the directordeterminedthat the petitionerfailed to establish
eligibility. The directorsummarizedthe evidencesubmittedpertainingto the beneficiary'sforeignand
proposedemploymentandfoundthattherecordlacksevidenceto demonstratethebeneficiary'sjob duties
with eitherentity. In light of thepetitioner'sfailureto supplementtherecordwith therequiredevidence
pertainingto thebeneficiary'sjob duties,thedirectorconcludedthatthepetitionerfailedto establishthatthe
beneficiarywas employedabroador that he would be employedin the United Statesin a qualifying
managerialorexecutivecapacity.Basedonthesetwogroundsof ineligibility,thedirectordeniedthepetition
in adecisionissuedonAugust19,2011.
Page3
On appeal,counselcontendsthatthe director'sdecisionis erroneousin law or fact. Counselgoeson to
discussa minordiscrepancypertainingto thesalarypaidto thebeneficiaryduringhis employmentabroad,
despitethefactthatsucha discrepancywasnotnotedin thedirector'sdecisionandthuswasnotthefocusof
theadversefindings. Finally,counselcontendsthatin theabsenceof contradictoryevidence,thedirector's
adversefindingswerenotwarrantedandthepetitionshouldbeapproved.
TheAAO findsthatcounsel'sassertionsarenotpersuasiveanddonotovercomethedirector'sdecision.The
discussionbelowwill provideananalysisof thefactorsthatarerelevantto thematterathand.
Section203(b)of theAct statesin pertinentpart:
(1) PriorityWorkers.-- Visasshallfirst bemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswho
arealiensdescribedin anyof thefollowingsubparagraphs(A) through(C):
* * *
(C)CertainMultinationalExecutivesandManagers.-- An alienis described
in this subparagraphif thealien, in the 3 yearsprecedingthe time of the
alien'sapplicationfor classificationand admissioninto the United States
underthis subparagraph,hasbeenemployedfor at least1yearby a firm or
corporationor otherlegalentityor anaffiliateor subsidiarythereofandwho
seeksto entertheUnitedStatesin orderto continueto renderservicesto the
sameemployeror to a subsidiaryor affiliate thereofin a capacitythat is
managerialor executive.
Thelanguageof thestatuteis specificin limiting thisprovisionto only thoseexecutivesandmanagerswho
havepreviouslyworkedfor afirm, corporationorotherlegalentity,oranaffiliateor subsidiaryof thatentity,
andwhoarecomingtotheUnitedStatestoworkfor thesameentity,or itsaffiliateor subsidiary.
A United Statesemployer may file a petition on Form I-140 for classification of an alien under section
203(b)(1)(C)of theAct asa multinationalexecutiveor manager.No laborcertificationis requiredfor this
classification. The prospective employer in the United Statesmust furnish a job offer in the form of a
statementwhich indicatesthat the alien is to be employed in the United Statesin a managerialor executive
capacity. Sucha statementmustclearlydescribethedutiesto beperformedby thealien.
Thetwoprimaryissuesin thisproceedingcallfor anexaminationof thebeneficiary'smanagerialorexecutive
employmentcapacityin hispositionswith theforeignandU.S.entities.
Section101(a)(44)(A)of theAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(44)(A),provides:
The term "managerialcapacity"meansan assignmentwithin an organizationin which the
employeeprimarily--
(i) managesthe organization,or a department,subdivision,function, or
componentof theorganization;
Page4
(ii) supervisesand controls the work of other supervisory,professional,or
managerial employees. or managesan essential function within the
organization,or adepartmentor subdivisionof theorganization;
(iii) if anotheremployeeor otheremployeesare directly supervised,hasthe
authorityto hire andfire or recommendthoseas well as otherpersonnel
actions(suchaspromotionandleaveauthorization),or if nootheremployee
is directlysupervised,functionsat a seniorlevel within the organizational
hierarchyorwith respecttothefunctionmanaged;and
(iv) exercisesdiscretionovertheday-to-dayoperationsof theactivityor function
for which the employeehas authority. A first-line supervisoris not
consideredto be actingin a managerialcapacitymerelyby virtue of the
supervisor'ssupervisoryduties unless the employeessupervisedare
professional.
Section101(a)(44)(B)of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(44)(B),provides:
The term "executivecapacity"meansan assignmentwithin an organizationin which the
employeeprimarily--
(i) directsthemanagementof theorganizationor amajorcomponentor function
of theorganization;
(ii) establishesthe goals and policies of the organization,component,or
function;
(iii) exerciseswidelatitudein discretionarydecision-making;and
(iv) receivesonly generalsupervisionor directionfrom higherlevelexecutives,
theboardof directors,or stockholdersof theorganization.
In examiningthe executiveor managerialcapacityof the beneficiary,the AAO will look first to the
descriptionof thebeneficiary'sjob dutiesin theposition(s)in question.See8C.F.R.§204.5(j)(5).Published
caselawsupportsthepivotalroleof aclearlydefinedjob description,deemingtheactualdutiesthemselvesas
the factors that determine 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.2d41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Additionally,the AAO finds that it is
appropriateandoftennecessaryto considerotherrelevantfactors,includingtheemployingentitiesrespective
organizationalhierarchiesandoverallstaffing,whichestablishwho actuallyperformedandwouldperform
thedailynon-qualifyingtasksof eitherorganization.
Therecordiseffectivelydevoidof anydetailedinformationpertainingto thebeneficiary'sjob dutiesin either
position.Aspreviouslynoted,theonlyjob descriptionthepetitionerprovidedpertainedto theproposedU.S.
employmentand consistedof paraphrasedversionsof the statutorydefinition for executivecapacity.
Althoughthepetitionerprovidedorganizationalchartspertainingto bothentities,depictingthebeneficiary's
positionwith eachemployer,thesedocumentsaremeaninglessif theycannotbeconsideredwithinthecontext
of a detaileddelineationof thebeneficiary'sactualdailyjob dutiesin hispositionwith theforeignentityand
theprojectedjob dutiesthebeneficiarywouldbe expectedto performin his proposedemploymentwith the
Page5
U.S.entity. An entity'sorganizationalchartis simplyinsufficientevidenceof thebeneficiary'semployment
capacity. As previouslyindicated,specificsaboutthe beneficiary'sjob dutiesare clearly an important
indicationof whetherthe beneficiary'semploymentabroadandhis proposedemploymentconsistedand
wouldconsistof dutiesthatareprimarilyexecutiveor managerialin nature;otherwisemeetingthedefinitions
wouldsimplybea matterof reiteratingtheregulations.FedinBros.Co, Ltd. v. Sava,724F. Supp.1103
(E.D.N.Y.1989),affd,905F.2d41(2d.Cir. 1990).
Themerefactthatthepetitionerprovidedsomefactuallyvalid evidencecontainingno contradictionsis not
sufficientto affirmativelyestablishthatthebeneficiarywasemployedabroadandwouldbeemployedin the
UnitedStatesin a qualifyingmanagerialor executivecapacity. Thepetitionerhastheburdenof establish
eligibility for theimmigrationbenefitsought.WhiletheAAO acknowledgesthatnobeneficiaryis required
to allocate100%of hisor hertimeto managerial-or executive-leveltasks,thepetitionermustestablishthat
thenon-qualifyingtasksthebeneficiaryperformedor wouldperformwere/areonly incidentalto theposition
in question.An employeewho "primarily"performsthetasksnecessaryto producea productor to provide
servicesis not consideredto be "primarily"employedin a managerialor executivecapacity. Seesections
101(a)(44)(A)and(B) of the Act (requiringthat one "primarily" performthe enumeratedmanagerialor
executiveduties);seealso Matter of Church ScientologyInternational, 19I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm. 1988).
Withoutadetailedjob description,thepetitionersimplycannotmeetitsevidentiaryburden.
The overalllack of informationexplainingwhatjob dutiesthe beneficiaryperformedabroadandwould
performduringhis employmentwith the petitioningentity precludesthe AAO from issuinga favorable
findingpertainingto thepetitioner'seligibility. Accordingly,theAAO findsthattheinstantpetitionmustbe
denied.
In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenof provingeligibility for thebenefitsoughtremainsentirelywith the
petitioner.Section291of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361.Thepetitionerhasnotsustainedthatburden.
ORDER: Theappealis dismissed.