dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management

identifyingdatadeletedto d
preventclearlyunwarrante
invasionofpersona1privacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U. S.CitizenshipandlmmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve. N.W., MS 2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
andImmigration
Services
DATE: OFFICE:TEXASSERVICECENTER FILE:
OCT282011
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionforAlienWorkerasaMultinationalExecutiveor ManagerPursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct,8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase.All of thedocuments
relatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedtotheofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadetothatoffice.
If you believethe law wasinappropriatelyappliedby us in reachingour decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile amotiontoreconsideroramotionto reopen.The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha requestcan be foundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5. All motionsmustbe
submittedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcaseby filing aFormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,
with a feeof $630. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthat anymotionmustbefiled
within 30 daysof the decisionthat the motion seeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
erryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION:ThepreferencevisapetitionwasdeniedbytheDirector,TexasServiceCenter.Thematteris
nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)onappeal.Theappealwill bedismissed.
Thepetitioneris a Texascorporationthatseeksto employthebeneficiaryasits generalmanagerandvice
president. Accordingly,the petitionerendeavorsto classifythe beneficiaryas an employment-based
immigrantpursuantto section203(b)(1)(C)of the Immigrationand NationalityAct (the Act), 8 U.S.C.
§ 1153(b)(1)(C),asamultinationalexecutiveormanager.
The directordeniedthe petitionbasedon two groundsof ineligibility. The directorconcludedthat the
petitionerfailedto establish(1) that it hasa qualifyingrelationshipwith thebeneficiary'sforeignemployer
and(2)thatthebeneficiarywouldbeemployedintheUnitedStatesin amanagerialorexecutivecapacity.
On appeal,counseldisputesthedirector'sdecisionandsubmitsanappellatebriefto supporthisarguments.
After carefulconsiderationof thepetitioner'ssubmissionstheAAO findsthattherecordcontainssufficient
evidenceto establishthataqualifyingrelationshipexistsbetweenthepetitionerandthebeneficiary'sforeign
employer. As such,the director'sfirst groundfor denialis herebywithdrawnandthe remainderof this
decisionwill focusonthedirector'ssecondfinding,whichconcernsthebeneficiary'semploymentcapacityin
hisproposedU.S.position.
Section203(b)of theAct statesin pertinentpart:
(1) Priority Workers.-- Visasshallfirst bemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswho
arealiensdescribedin anyof thefollowingsubparagraphs(A) through(C):
* * *
(C) CertainMultinationalExecutivesandManagers.-- An alienis described
in this subparagraphif the alien,in the 3 yearsprecedingthe time of the
alien'sapplicationfor classificationandadmissioninto 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
managerialorexecutive.
Thelanguageof thestatuteis specificin limiting thisprovisionto onlythoseexecutivesandmanagerswho
havepreviouslyworkedfor afirm, corporationor otherlegalentity,oranaffiliateor subsidiaryof thatentity,
andwhoarecomingto theUnitedStatesto workforthesameentity,oritsaffiliateor subsidiary.
A UnitedStatesemployermay file a petitionon FormI-140for classificationof an alien undersection
203(b)(1)(C)of theAct asa multinationalexecutiveor manager.No laborcertificationis requiredfor this
classification.The prospectiveemployerin the UnitedStatesmustfurnisha job offer in the form of a
statementwhich indicatesthatthealienis to beemployedin theUnitedStatesin a managerialor executive
capacity.Suchastatementmustclearlydescribethedutiesto beperformedbythealien.
Page3
Theprimaryissuein thisproceedingis whetherthepetitionersubmittedsufficientevidenceto establishthat
thebeneficiarywouldbeemployedin 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
componentoftheorganization;
(ii) supervisesand controisthe work of other supervisory,professionai,or
managerialemployees,or managesan essentialfunction within the
organization,oradepartmentorsubdivisionof 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 seniorlevelwithin the organizational
hierarchyor withrespectto thefunctionmanaged;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 theorganizationoramajorcomponentorfunction
of theorganization;
(ii) establishesthe goals and policies of the organization,component,or
function;
(iii) exerciseswidelatitudein discretionarydecision-making;and
(iv) receivesonly generalsupervisionor directionfromhigherlevelexecutives,
theboardof directors,orstockholdersof theorganization.
In supportof theFormI-140,thepetitionersubmittedaletterdatedJune12,2009,whichincludedalist of the
beneficiary'sproposedjob responsibilities.Thepetitionerindicatedthatthebeneficiarywouldberesponsible
for investments,increasingefficiency,overseeingU.S.operations,makingdecisionsregardingcontractswith
suppliersanddistributors,directingmanagersin thecompany'saccountingandfooddepartments,establishing
salesgoals,meetingwith dealersanddistributors,overseeingcontactswith businesspartners,andexpanding
Page4
theU.S.work force. Thepetitionerstatedthatthebeneficiary'sexperiencewith theoverseasentitymakes
himqualifiedto negotiatecontractsonthepetitioner'sbehalf.
The petitioneralso providedtwo organizationalchartseachpertainingto oneof the petitioner'stwo gas
station/conveniencestorebusinesses.Thefirst store'schartdepictsthebeneficiaryin thepositionof general
managerwith aseparateindividualoccupyingthepositionof vicepresident.Thepresidentis depictedasthe
beneficiary'ssuperiorandanaccountingmanager/cashierandafoodmanager/cashierareeachdepictedasthe
beneficiary'sdirectsubordinates.The remainderof the staff is comprisedof a shift manager/cashier,the
directsubordinateof the accountingmanager/cashier,andtwo cooks,bothdirectlysubordinateto thefood
manager/cashier.Thesecondstore'sorganizationalchartalsodepictsthepresidentatthetopof thehierarchy.
However,unlike the prior store'schart,the beneficiaryis depictedin the combinedpositionof general
managerand vice presidentwith the food manageras his direct subordinate,who overseesthree
cook/cashiers.
On July 28, 2009,the directorissueda requestfor additionalevidence(RFE)instructingthe petitionerto
submitevidenceof the U.S.entity'sstaffing,includingthe numberof employeesthe petitionerhas,each
employee'sjob dutiesandeducationalcredentials,andthecompany'smanagementandpersonnelstructure.
In response,thepetitionerprovidedastatementfromcounseldatedAugust27,2009. Counselstatedthatthe
beneficiarywouldbeemployedin a managerialcapacityin thathewouldoverseetheworkof anaccounting
manager,whomcounseldescribedasa professionalemployeepossessinga baccalaureatedegree,andtwo
managerialemployees,includinga food servicemanageranda food manager/headchef. The petitioner
providedan updatedorganizationalchartand explainedthat one of the employeeswas promotedto a
managerialpositionsincethepetitionwasfiled.
Counselalsostatedthatthebeneficiarywouldbeemployedin anexecutivecapacityin thathewoulddirect
the financesandmarketing,establishthe petitioner'sgoalsandpolicies,makediscretionarydecisions,and
receiveonlygeneralsupervisionfromthecompanypresident.Thepetitionerprovideda supplementallist of
20job responsibilities.Of the20itemslistedin theresponse,18of thoseitemswereincludedin thedirector's
decisionandthereforeneednot berestatedin this decision.Itemno.6-being in chargeof expandingthe
company'swork force-and item no. 7-directing andcoordinatingmarketingandbusinessdevelopment
activities-werethetwo itemsthatwereinadvertentlyleftoutof thedirector'sdecision.
OnOctober5, 2009,thedirectordeniedthepetitionconcludingthatthepetitionerfailedto establishthatthe
beneficiarywouldbeemployedin the UnitedStatesin a qualifyingmanagerialor executivecapacity.The
directorobservedthe changein the accountmanager'spositiontitle from accountingmanager/cashierto
simplyaccountingmanageranddeterminedthatthispositionwasnota full-timeposition. Thedirectoralso
determinedthat the beneficiarywould primarily performthe tasks of a first-line supervisor,as the
beneficiary'ssubordinatesaremainlynon-professionalemployees.
WhiletheAAO findsthata denialof thepetitionwaswarranted,thedirector'sunderlyinganalysisis flawed
andneedsfurtherclarification.First,theAAO notesthatachangein positiontitlesdoesnotindicatewhether
an employeeis employedon a part-or full-timebasis. As such,the AAO findsthatthereis no basisfor
affirmatively concluding that the accountingmanager/cashierwas employed on a part-time basisat the time
of filing. While it is possiblethathewasonly a part-timeemployee,sucha determinationwouldrequire
documentationof thewagespaidto thatindividualatthetimeof filing. See8C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(1).Here,the
Page5
AAO finds that the recordis devoid of the documentationthat is necessaryto establishwhetherthe
accountingmanager/cashierwasemployedonapart-timebasisin2009whenthepetitionwasfiled.
Second,theAAO findsthattherecordlackssufficientinformationto allowforthefindingthatthebeneficiary
primarilyperformsthetasksof a first-linesupervisor.In orderto makethis determination,therecordmust
containdocumentationshowingthatthebeneficiary'ssubordinatesarenon-supervisory,non-managerial,and
non-professionalemployeesandthat the primaryportionof the beneficiary'stime is spentoverseeingthe
workof theseemployees.Sucha findingalsoimpliesthatthepetitionerprovideda sufficientlydetailedjob
descriptionto conveyameaningfulunderstandingof theactualtasksthebeneficiarywouldperformonadaily
basis. Here,again,the AAO finds thatthe recordlackssufficientevidenceto allow the directorto have
reacheda conclusion. Contraryto thedirector'sobservation,theAAO findsthatthepetitioner'sdescription
of thebeneficiary'sproposedemploymentlackssufficientdetailaboutthebeneficiary'sjob duties.Rather,the
list of itemsprovidedin responseto theRFEis primarilycomprisedof generaljob responsibilitiesthatfocus
on the beneficiary'sdiscretionarydecision-makingand supervisoryauthority. The vagueinformation
precludesa trueunderstandingof thebeneficiary'sactualdaily tasks,whicharenecessaryto determinethe
employmentcapacityof the proposedposition. For instance,while the petitionerindicatedthat the
beneficiarywoulddirectandcoordinatethepetitioner'sfinances,nospecifictaskswerelistedto explainhow
theseresponsibilitiestranslateintoactualdailytasks.Thesameis trueof thebeneficiary'srolein overseeing
theestablishmentof operations,directingthemanagementof accounting,formulatingandexpandingpolicies,
planningbusinessobjectives,directingtradeactivities,andoverseeingcontactwith businesspartners.These
statementsaresogeneralthattheycanbeappliedto a varietyof managers,includingthosewho primarily
performdaily operationaltasksandthusdo not meetthecriteriaspecifiedfor a multinationalmanageror
executive. Specificsareclearly an importantindicationof whethera beneficiary'sdutiesare primarily
executiveor managerialin nature;otherwisemeetingthedefinitionswouldsimplybea matterof reiterating
theregulations.FedinBros.Co.,Ltd. v. Sava,724F. Supp.1103(E.D.N.Y.1989),affd, 905F.2d41 (2d.
Cir. 1990).
WhiletheAAO acknowledgesthatno beneficiaryis requiredto allocate100%of histimeto managerial-or
executive-leveltasks,the petitionermust establishthat the non-qualifyingtasksthe beneficiarywould
performareonly incidentalto his/herproposedposition. An employeewho "primarily"performsthetasks
necessaryto producea productor to provideservicesis not consideredto be "primarily" employedin a
managerialor executivecapacity. Seesections10l(a)(44)(A)and (B) of the Act (requiringthat one
"primarily"performtheenumeratedmanagerialor executiveduties);seealsoMatterof ChurchScientologv
International,19I&N Dec.593,604(Comm.1988).TheAAO notesthatwithoutadetailedjob description,
establishingspecificallywhattasksthebeneficiarywouldperformon a daily basis,it cannotbeconcluded
thatthebeneficiarywouldbeemployedin aqualifyingmanagerialorexecutivecapacity.
Additionally,theevidenceof recordmustshowthatthepetitioneriscapableof relievingthebeneficiaryfrom
havingto primarily performnon-qualifyingtasks. This oftencallsfor an examinationof the petitioner's
staffing structure,as merelyclaiming that the petitioneris capableof employingthe beneficiaryin a
qualifying capacityis not sufficient without actual evidenceestablishingwho within the petitioner's
organizationalhierarchyis availableto performthosedaily operationaltasksthat areoutsidethe realmof
what is deemedas qualifying within a managerialor executivecapacity. In reviewingthe relevanceof the
numberof employeesa petitionerhas,federalcourtshavegenerallyagreedthat USCIS"may properly
consideranorganization'ssmallsizeasonefactorin assessingwhetherits operationsaresubstantialenough
to supporta manager."Family,Inc. v. U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices,469F.3d1313,1316(9th
Page6
Cir. 2006)(citingwith approvalRepublicof Transkeiv.INS,923F.2d175,178(D.C.Cir. 1991);FedinBros.
Co.v.Sava,905F.2d41,42(2dCir. 1990)(percuriam);QDataConsulting,Inc.v.INS,293F. Supp.2d25,
29(D.D.C.2003).Furthermore,it is appropriatefor USCISto considerthesizeof thepetitioningcompanyin
conjunctionwith otherrelevantfactors,suchasa company'ssmallpersonnelsize,theabsenceof employees
whowouldperformthenon-managerialor non-executiveoperationsof thecompany,or a "shellcompany"
thatdoesnotconductbusinessin aregularandcontinuousmanner.See,e.g. SystronicsCorp.v.INS,153F.
Supp.2d7, 15(D.D.C.2001).
In the presentmatter,the wagedocumentationfor 2008indicatesthat a largenumberof the petitioner's
employeeswerecompensatedwith wagesthatwouldnotbecommensuratewiththoseof full-timeemployees.
If this wasstill thecaseat thetimethepetitionwasfiled in 2009,it is likely thatthebeneficiarywouldbe
calleduponto performnumerousdaily operationaltasksto ensurethatthepetitionercontinuesto function
successfully.It isnotedthatapetitioner'sneedswill notsupersedethestatutoryrequirement,whichexpressly
statesthatthebeneficiarymustprimarilyperformtaskswithin a qualifyingmanagerialor executivecapacity
in orderto merittheimmigrantclassificationsought.
On appeal,counselsupplementsthepreviouslyprovidedlist of the beneficiary'sjob responsibilitieswith a
percentagebreakdownwhich allocatestime to the itemson the list. Thetime allocationsarenot useful,
however,whenthejob descriptionlistsonly broadjob responsibilitiesratherthanspecificjob duties,which
theregulationsrequirein orderto establisheligibility. See8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(5).TheAAO furthernotes
that counsel'sreferenceto the petitioner'supdatedorganizationalstructureis irrelevantfor the purposeof
establishingthepetitioner'seligibility atthetimeof filing. A petitionermustestablisheligibility atthetime
of Elingthepetition;apetitioncannotbeapprovedatafuturedateafterthepetitionerorbeneficiarybecomes
eligibleundera newsetof facts. MatterofKatigbak, 14I&N Dec.45, 49 (Comm.1971). Furthermore,
despitecounsel'sreferencesto the"departments"withinthepetitioningorganization,therecordcontainslittle
evidenceto supporttheneedfor or existenceof departmentsandmultiplemanagerialtierswithin thecontext
of a gasstation/conveniencestoreoperation.Goingon recordwithoutsupportingdocumentaryevidenceis
not sufficientfor purposesof meetingtheburdenof proofin theseproceedings.Matterof Soffici,22 I&N
Dec.158,165(Comm.1998)(citingMatterof TreasureCraftof California,14I&N Dec.190(Reg.Comm.
1972)). The unsupportedassertionsof counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N
Dec.533,534(BIA 1988);Matterof Laureano,19I&N Dec.1(BIA 1983);Matterof Ramirez-Sanchez,17
I&N Dec.503,506(BIA 1980).
In summary,the recorddoesnot establishthat the petitionerhasthe needor the ability to employthe
beneficiaryin apositionthatisprimarilywithinaqualifyingmanagerialorexecutivecapacity.Therefore,on
thebasisof thisconclusion,theAAO findsthatthepetitioncannotbeapproved.
Additionally,whilenotaddressedin thedirector'sdecision,therecordshowsthatthepetitionerdoesnotmeet
the criteriacited in 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(3)(i)(A),which statesthat the petitionermustestablishthat the
beneficiarywasemployedabroadin a qualifyingmanagerialor executivecapacityfor at leastoneoutof the
threeyearsprior to filing theFormI-140. Similarto thedescriptionthatwasprovidedwith regardto the
proposedemployment,the descriptionof the beneficiary'sforeignemploymentwas lackingin a detailed
descriptionof job duties. As indicatedabove,the actualdutiesthemselvesrevealthe true natureof the
employment.FedinBros.Co.,Ltd v.Sava,724F.Supp.at 1108.Astherecordlacksthisinformation,which
is necessaryto determinethe beneficiary'semploymentcapacitywith the petitioner'sforeignaffiliate,the
instantpetitioncannotbeapprovedonthebasisof thisadditionalfinding.
Page7
An applicationor petitionthatfailsto 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
(9th Cir. 2003);seealsoSoltanev. DOJ, 381F.3d143,145(3d Cir. 2004)(notingthatthe AAO reviews
appealsonadenovobasis).Therefore,basedontheadditionalgroundof ineligibilitydiscussedabove,this
petitioncannotbeapproved.
The petition will be deniedfor the abovestatedreasons,with eachconsideredas an independentand
alternativebasisfor denial. In visa petitionproceedings,the burdenof provingeligibility for the benefit
soughtremainsentirelywith thepetitioner.Section291of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361.Thepetitionerhasnot
metthat burden.
ORDER: Theappealis dismissed.