dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U. s. CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve.N.W., MS 2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: OFFICE:NEBRASKASERVICECENTER
DEC202012
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionforAlienWorkerasaMultinationalExecutiveor ManagerPursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER: SELF-REPRESENTED
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase.All of thedocuments
relatedto this matterhavebeenreturnedto the office that originally decidedyour case. Pleasebe advisedthat
anyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believethe law wasinappropriatelyappliedby us in reachingour decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopenin
accordancewith the instructionson Form I-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,with a feeof $630. The
specific requirementsfor filing such a requestcan be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion
directly with the AAO. Pleasebe awarethat 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthat any motion must be filed
within 30 daysof thedecisionthat the motion seeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
RonRosenberg
ActingChief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION:Thepreferencevisa petitionwasdeniedby the Director,NebraskaServiceCenter. The
matteris nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)onappeal.Theappealwill bedismissed.
Thepetitioneris aCaliforniacorporationthatseeksto employthebeneficiaryin theUnitedStatesasitsCEO
andvice presidentof development.Accordingly,thepetitionerendeavorsto classifythebeneficiaryasan
employment-basedimmigrantpursuantto section203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct (the
Act), 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C),asamultinationalexecutiveormanager.
Therecordshowsthatin supportof theFormI-140thepetitionersubmitteda statementdatedJuly6, 2010.
The statementwas signedby petitioning entity. statement
addressedvariousissuesconcerningthe petitioner'seligibility, includingthe beneficiary'semployment
abroadas well as his proposedemploymentwith the petitioningentity. indicatedthat the
beneficiary'sforeignposition includedmarketingand customerserviceelementsas well as personnel
managementandadministrativeduties. With regardto the beneficiary'sproposedemployment,
statedthat the beneficiarywould concentrateon the company'sgrowth,finances,personnel,andbusiness
procurement,the latter of which would requirenegotiatingdistributionagreementswith suppliersand
identifyingnewproducts. referredto businessprocurementasthebeneficiary's"mostimportant
duty" andfurtherstatedthatthebeneficiaryfunctionsat a seniormanagementlevelwithin thepetitioner's
organizationandmanagesa subordinatestaffof supervisorypersonnel.Thepetitionerprovidedbothentities'
organizationalchartsandalsosubmitteddocumentationin theformof corporateandtaxdocuments.
Thedirectorreviewedthepetitioner'ssubmissionsanddeterminedthatthepetitiondid notwarrantapproval.
Thedirectorthereforeissueda requestfor evidence(RFE)instructingthepetitionerto providemoredetailed
job descriptionspertainingto thebeneficiary'sforeignandproposedpositions,respectively.Thedirectoralso
askedfor evidenceof thepetitioner'squalifyingrelationshipwith thebeneficiary'sforeignemployeraswell
astaxdocuments,includingIRSForm1099sandFormW-2sissuedbythepetitioningentity.
Thepetitionercompliedwith thedirector'srequestsupplementingtherecordwith additionaldocumentation.
However,afterreviewingthe evidencesubmittedin responseto theRFE,thedirectordeterminedthat the
petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad or that he would be employed by the
U.S. entity in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. Additionally, relying on the common law
definition of "employee," the director determinedthat the beneficiary's ownership of 50% of the petitioner's
issuedstockprecludesthe beneficiaryfrom forming the requisiteemployer-employeerelationshipwith the
petitioningentity. Accordingly,the directorissueda decisiondatedAugust20, 2011denyingthepetition
basedonthethreegroundsof ineligibilitydiscussedin thisparagraph.
onbehalfof thepetitioner,now a pealsthe denialaddressingall threegroundsin an appellate
brief datedSeptember16,2011. providesevidenceto resolvean inconsistencyregardingthe
petitioner'sownership,showingthat she,not the beneficiary,owns and controlsthe majority of the
petitioner'sstock. In light of thisevidence,theAAO findsthatthepetitionerhassuccessfullyovercomeone
of thethreegroundsfordenial.
With regardto the two remainingdenialgrounds-the beneficiary'semploymentcapacityin his foreign
employmentandhis proposedpositionwith the U.S.entity providedsupplementalinformation
discussingthebeneficiary'sjob dutiesandresponsibilities.
Page3
Notwithstandinthepetitioner'sability to overcomeoneof thethreegroundsof ineligibility,theAAO finds
that assertionsarenotpersuasivein establishingthatthepetitioneris eligiblefor theimmigration
ben soug analysisof therelevantdocumentsisprovidedin thediscussionbelow.
Section203(b)of theAct statesin pertinentpart:
(1) PriorityWorkers.- Visasshallfirst bemadeavailable. . , to qualifiedimmigrantswho
arealiensdescribedinanyof thefollowingsubparagraphs(A) through(C):
(C)CertainMultinationalExecutivesandManagers.-- An alienis described
in this subparagraphif the alien,in the 3 yearsprecedingthe time of the
alien'sapplicationfor classificationand admissioninto the United States
underthissubparagraph,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
managerialorexecutive.
Thelanguageof thestatuteis specificin limiting thisprovisionto only thoseexecutivesandmanagerswho
havepreviouslyworkedfor a firm,corporationorotherlegalentity,oranaffiliateor subsidiaryof thatentity,
andwhoarecomingtotheUnitedStatestoworkfor thesameentity,orits affiliateor subsidiary.
A UnitedStatesemployermay file a petitionon Form I-140 for classificationof an alien undersection
203(b)(1)(C)of theAct asa multinationalexecutiveor manager.No laborcertificationis requiredfor this
classification. Theprospectiveemployerin the UnitedStatesmustfurnisha job offer in the form of a
statementwhichindicatesthatthealienis to beemployedin theUnitedStatesin a managerialor executive
capacity.Sucha statementmustclearlydescribethedutiestobeperformedbythealien.
In an effort to addressthe two primary issuesin this proceeding-the beneficiary's employment capacity in
his respectivepositionswith the foreignandU.S.entities--theAAO will examinetherecordto determine
whetherit containssufficientevidenceto establishthatthebeneficiarywasemployedabroadandwouldbe
employedin theUnitedStatesin aqualifyingmanagerialorexecutivecapacity.
Section101(a)(44)(A)of theAct, 8 U.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;
(ii) supervisesand controlsthe work of other supervisory,professional,or
managerialemployees,or managesan essentialfunction within the
organization,oradepartmentor subdivisionof theorganization;
Page4
(iii) if anotheremployeeor otheremployeesare directly supervised,has the
authorityto hire and fire or recommendthoseas well as otherpersonnel
actions(suchaspromotionandleaveauthorization),or if nootheremployee
is directlysupervised,functionsat a seniorlevel within the organizational
hierarchyor with 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,8U.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
petitioner'sdescriptionof thebeneficiary'sproposedjob duties.See8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(5).Publishedcase
lawsupportsthepivotalroleof aclearlydefinedjob description,deemingtheactualdutiesthemselvesasthe
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.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). The AAO also finds that it is appropriateto
considerother relevant factors, including the organizationalhierarchy and overall staffing of the company or
companiesin question,both of which would help establishwho within a given entity performed or would
performthedaily non-qualifyingtasks.
Turning first to the beneficiary'semploymentwith the foreignentity, the recordshowstwo conflicting
organizationalcharts-one submittedinitially in supportof thepetition(anda replicaof thechartthatwas
providedin responseto theRFE)andthemorerecentchart,which submittedonappeal.TheAAO
notesthatwhiletheoriginalchartshowsthebeneficiaryoccupyingtwomanagerialpositions--thepositionof
marketingmanagerandIT manager-whereonepositionis subordinateto theother,no otherpositionsare
shownto be subordinateto thebeneficiary. Themorerecentchartsubmittedon appealshowsthat in his
capacityasmarketingmanager,thebeneficiary'spositionwassupervisoryto theIT managerposition(which
the beneficiaryhimselfoccupied)and the positionof salesmanager. This chartalsoindicatesthat the
beneficiary'sIT managerpositionwas supervisoryto technologyprovidersand contractors. The latter
information was not conveyed in the original organizational chart, which showed the position of sales
managerat the samelevel within the foreignentity'sorganizationalhierarchyasthat of the beneficiary's
Page5
marketingmanagerposition. As notedin thedirector'sdecision,thepetitionerhastheburdenof resolving
any inconsistenciesin therecordby independentobjectiveevidence.Any attemptto explainor reconcile
suchinconsistencieswill not sufficeunlessthepetitionersubmitscompetentobjectiveevidencepointingto
wherethetruthlies. MatterofHo, 19I&N Dec.582,591-92(BIA 1988).
In additionto theaboveinconsistency,theAAO alsofindsthatthejob descriptionsprovidedwith regardto
the petitioner'semploymentabroadwereinsufficientto establishthat the beneficiaryallocatedhis time
primarilyto theperformanceof tasksin a qualifyingmanagerialor executivecapacity. indicated
that10%of thebeneficiary'stimewasallocatedto promotingsalesof thecompany'sproductsby optimizing
marketshare,improvingefficiency,and providing outstandingcustomerservice. Aside from actually
carryingouttheforeignentity'smarketing-relatedtasks,whichwouldfall within thecategoryof operational
ornon-qualifyingtasks,it isunclearhowthebeneficiaryassistedwith increasingthecompany'smarketshare.
alsofailedto disclosethe specifictasksthe beneficiarycarriedout in ensuringefficiencyand
optimalcustomerserviceandshewasequallyvaguein statingthata totalof 10%of thebeneficiary'stime
was allocatedto supervision,marketing,profitability and sales,reporting,purchasing,resalepricing,
inventory,service,maintenance,andpromotingteamwork. In otherwords, failedto specifythe
beneficiary's specific role with regard to thesenumerous elementsand she did not statewhat actual daily
tasksthe beneficiaryperformed. Although madenumerousreferencesto the beneficiary's
personnelmanagementresponsibilities,neitherthebeneficiary'spositiontitle nor his placementwithin the
foreignentity'sorganizationalhierarchysupporttheassertionsconveyedin makingthesereferences. The
AAO furtherfindsthatadditionalclarificationis neededin orderto determinethatthebeneficiary'srole in
coordinatingandassistingdepartmentmanagerswith marketingplanstranslatedto taskswithin a qualifying
managerialor executivecapacity.
Turningnowto thebeneficiary'sproposedpositionwith theU.S.entity,theAAO notes claim
thatthebeneficiary'skeyresponsibilityis businessprocurement,whichrequiresthebeneficiaryto seekout
new businessand negotiatecontractswith suppliers. Although the petitionerprovideda percentage
breakdownin responseto the RFE, it is unclearhow muchtime the beneficiaryplansto spenddirectly
providingsales-andmarketing-relatedtasks,whicharerequiredfor thepurposeof obtainingnewclients.
Additionally, the percentage breakdown that was provided in response to the RFE indicates that the
beneficiary would spend 28% of his time assisting managersand/or property managersby providing sales
strategy and campaign coordination and providing instruction to front desk managers and reservation
managers.As thereareno reservationmanagers,propertymanagers,or front deskmanagersincludedin the
petitioner'sorganizationalchart,theAAO canonly assumethat thesevarioustypesof managersarethe end
usersof thepetitioner'stechnologyproductsandthebeneficiarywouldbedirectlyassistingtheseendusers.
Withoutfurtherclarification,theAAO cannotconcludethatthesetasksarewithina qualifyingmanagerialor
executivecapacity.
Thepetitioneralsoindicatedthatthebeneficiarywouldallocate10%of his timeto providingguidanceand
leadershipfor managingcustomersand coordinatingmarketingand salesefforts. As the petitioner's
organizationalchartdoesnot identifyanyemployeewhoactuallycarriesoutmarketingtasks,theAAO can
only assumethat the beneficiaryperformsmarketingtasksto help sell the petitioner'sproducts. The
petitioner'sorganizationalchartidentifiesthebeneficiaryas"SalesCA" andnamessix individuals(whoare
seeminglyassignedto sell the petitioner'sproductsin variouslocationsin California) alongsidethe
beneficiary. Thejob descriptiondoesnot clarify what relationshipthe beneficiaryhas with thesesix
individuals,how thebeneficiary's"SalesCA" positioncomparesto the individualsassignedto the same
Page6
positionsin Florida,Texas,Illinois, andPennsylvania,or the natureof the beneficiary'sspecificrole in
relationto thesalesfunction.
As sales-andmarketing-relatedtaskswould be deemednon-qualifying,it is critical for thepetitionerto
provideclarificationfortheaboveuncertaintiesandto establishwhatportionof thebeneficiary'stimewould
beallocatedto tasksthatarequalifyingversusthosethatarenot. While theAAO acknowledgesthat no
beneficiaryis requiredto allocate100%of his or her time to managerial-or executive-leveltasks,the
petitionermustestablishthatthenon-qualifyingtasksthebeneficiarywouldperformareonlyincidentalto the
proposedposition. An employeewho "primarily"performsthetasksnecessaryto producea productor to
provideservicesis not consideredto be "primarily"employedin a managerialor executivecapacity. See
sections101(a)(44)(A)and(B) of theAct (requiringthatone"primarily"performtheenumeratedmanagerial
or executiveduties);seealsoMatter of ChurchScientologyInternational,19I&N Dec.593,604(Comm.
1988). Thejob descriptiondoesnot containsufficientinformationto allow the AAO to affirmatively
concludethattheprimaryportionof thebeneficiary'stimewouldbeallocatedto taskswithin a qualifying
managerialorexecutivecapacity.
While the AAO hasexaminedthe petitioner'sorganizationalchart.therecorddoesnot containsufficient
supportingevidenceto establishthat the individualsnamedin the chart,particularlythe numeroussales
people(whomthepetitionerpresumablyhiresona contractualor commissionbasis)areactuallyperforming
salesservicesasclaimed.TheAAO notesthatthepetitionerprovidedonly four IRSForm1099sfor 2010
andof thosefour,oneForm 1099wasissuedto a tax servicingcompany,andtheindividualsto whomthe
threeremainingForm1099swereissuedwerenot namedanywherein thepetitioner'sorganizationalchart.
In light of thesubmitteddocumentation,theAAO is unableto determinejust whomthepetitioneractually
employedat thetimeof filing thepetition. Giventhelackof clarityin thebeneficiary'sjob descriptionand
thefurtherlack of informationwith regardto thepetitioner'sstaffingat thetime of filing thepetition,the
AAO is unableto concludethatthepetitionerwasableto relievethebeneficiaryfromhavingto allocatehis
timeprimarily to theperformanceof non-qualifyingtasks.
In summary,therecorddoesnotcontainsufficientevidencedemonstratingthatthebeneficiarywasemployed
abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity or that the beneficiary would be employed in the
United Statesin a qualifying managerialor executivecapacity. Accordingly, thepetition cannotbeapproved.
Additionally,while not previouslyaddressedin the director'sdecision,the AAO finds that thepetitioner
failedto providesufficientevidenceto demonstratethataqualifyingrelationshipexistsbetweenthepetitioner
andthebeneficiary'sforeignemployer.
Theregulationandcaselaw confirmthatownershipandcontrolarethe factorsthatmustbe examinedin
determiningwhethera qualifyingrelationshipexistsbetweenUnitedStatesandforeignentitiesfor purposes
of this visaclassification. Matterof ChurchScientologyInternational,19I&N Dec.593:seealsoMatterof
SiemensMedicalSystems,Inc., 19I&N Dec.362(Assoc.Comm.1986);Matterof Hughes,18I&N Dec.289
(Comm.1982). In thecontextof this visapetition,ownershiprefersto thedirector indirectlegalright of
possessionof theassetsof an entity with full powerandauthorityto control;controlmeansthe director
indirectlegalrightandauthorityto directtheestablishment,management,andoperationsof anentity. Matter
of ChurchScientologyInternational,19I&N Dec.at595.
Page7
Thepetitionerhasprovidedsufficientevidenceto demonstratetha thebeneficiary'sspouse,is
the majorityownerof the petitioningentity. However,the evidencesubmittedto showownershipof the
foreignentityis notsufficient. Specifically,whilethepetitionerprovideda foreigndocumentandits English
translationshowingthatthebeneficiarywasnamedgeneralmanagerof the foreignentity,thedocumentis
silentasto theownershipof thatentity. TheAAO cannotassumethatmanagementof theforeignentityis
synonymouswith ownershipof thatentity. Therefore,theAAO cannotconcludethatthepetitionerandthe
beneficiary'sforeignemployerarecommonlyownedby Goingon recordwithout supporting
documentaryevidenceis not sufficientfor purposesof meetingthe burdenof proof in theseproceedings.
Matter of Soffici,22I&N Dec. 158,165(Comm.1998)(citingMatter of TreasureCraft of California,14
I&N Dec.190(Reg.Comm.1972)).
An applicationor petitionthatfails to complywith thetechnicalrequirementsof thelaw maybedeniedby
theAAO evenif theServiceCenterdoesnotidentifyall of thegroundsfor denialin theinitial decision.See
SpencerEnterprises,Inc. v. UnitedStates,229F. Supp.2d 1025,1043(E.D.Cal.2001),affd, 345F.3d683
(9thCir. 2003);seealsoSoltanev. DOJ, 381F.3d 143,145(3dCir. 2004)(notingthattheAAO reviews
appealsona denovobasis).Therefore,basedontheadditionalgroundof ineligibility discussedabove,the
petitioncannotbeapproved.
In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenof provingeligibility for thebenefitsoughtremainsentirelywith the
petitioner.Section291of theAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1361.Thepetitionerhasnotsustainedthatburden.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.