dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management

identifyingdatadeletedtopreventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.DepartmentofHomelandSecurity
U. S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)
20MassachusettsAve.N.W.,MS2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
8 U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: OFFICE:TEXASSERVICECENTER
OCT062011
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien WorkerasaMultinationalExecutiveor ManagerPursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(C)oftheImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER: SELF-REPRESENTED
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decisionof the AdministrativeAppealsOffice in your case. All of the documents
relatedto this matterhavebeenreturnedto theoffice thatoriginally decidedyour case.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadetothatoffice.
If you believethe law wasinappropriatelyappliedby us in reachingour decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyouwishtohaveconsidered,youmayfile amotiontoreconsideroramotiontoreopen.The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha requestcanbe foundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.All motionsmustbe
submittedto the office that originally decidedyour caseby filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion,
with a fee of $630. Pleasebe awarethat 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthat any motion must be filed
within 30 daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
DISCUSSION: TheDirector,TexasServiceCenter,determinedthatthepetitionerin thepresentmatteris not
eligiblefor thepreferencevisapetitionsoughtherein.Thedirectorhascertifiedthismatterfor reviewbythe
AdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO). TheAAOwill affirmthedirector'sfindingsanddenythepetition.
The petitioner is a Florida corporation that seeksto employ the beneficiary as its general manager.
Accordingly,thepetitionerendeavorsto classifythebeneficiaryasanemployment-basedimmigrantpursuant
to section203(b)(1)(C)of the ImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8U.S.C.§ l l53(b)(1)(C),asa
multinationalexecutiveor manager.
The directorreviewedthe recordof proceedingspertainingto the instantpetitionerand determinedthat the
petitionerfailed to meetthree eligibility requirements. The first two findings pertainto the beneficiary's
employmentcapacity. Specifically,the directordeterminedthat the petitionerfailed to establishthat 1)the
beneficiarywasemployedabroadin a qualifyingmanagerialor executivecapacityandthat 2) thebeneficiary
would beemployedin theUnited Statesin a qualifyingmanagerialor executivecapacity. Lastly,thedirector
determinedthat the beneficiaryself-petitionedby virtue of having signedthe Form I-140 asthe petitioner's
signatoryofficial.
Thereis noevidencein therecordto indicatethatthepetitionerhassupplementedtherecordwith additional
evidenceor information in responseto the director'sadversefindings. Therefore,the record is deemed
completeas presentlyconstitutedand a decisionwill be issuedon the basisof the documentationthat is
currentlyonrecord.
Section203(b)of theAct statesin pertinentpart:
(1) Priority Workers.- Visasshallfirst bemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswho
arealiensdescribedin anyof thefollowing subparagraphs(A) through(C):
* * *
(C) Certain Multinational Executives and Managers. - An alien is described
in this subparagraphif the alien, in the 3 yearsprecedingthe time of the
alien'sapplicationfor classificationandadmissioninto the UnitedStates
underthis subparagraph,hasbeenemployedfor at least1 yearby a firm or
corporationor otherlegalentity or anaffiliate or subsidiarythereofandwho
seeksto enterthe United Statesin orderto continueto renderservicesto the
sameemployeror to a subsidiaryor affiliate thereof in a capacitythat is
managerialor executive.
Thelanguageof the statuteis specificin limiting this provisionto only thoseexecutivesandmanagerswho
havepreviouslyworkedfor afirm, corporationor otherlegalentity,or anaffiliateor subsidiaryof thatentity,
andwhoarecomingto theUnitedStatesto workfor thesameentity,or itsaffiliateor subsidiary.
A UnitedStatesemployermayfile a petitionon FormI-140for classificationof an alienundersection
203(b)(1)(C)of theAct asa multinationalexecutiveor manager.No laborcertificationis requiredfor this
classification. The prospectiveemployerin the United Statesmust furnish a job offer in the form of a
Page3
statementwhich indicatesthat the alien is to be employedin the United Statesin a managerialor executive
capacity. Sucha statementmustclearlydescribethedutiesto beperformedby thealien.
Thefirst two issuesin this proceedingfocusonthebeneficiary'sjob dutiesduringhis foreignandproposed
employment.Specifically,theAAO will examinetherecordto determinewhetherthedirectorwascorrectin
concludingthat beneficiarywas not employedabroadandwould not be employedin the United Statesin a
qualifyingmanagerialorexecutivecapacity.
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;
(ii) supervisesand controls the work of other supervisory,professional,or
managerial employees, or manages an essential function within the
organization,or a departmentor subdivisionof theorganization;
(iii) if anotheremployeeor otheremployeesare directly supervised,hasthe
authority to hire and fire or recommendthoseas well as other personnel
actions(suchaspromotionandleaveauthorization),or if no otheremployee
is directly supervised,functionsat a seniorlevel within the organizational
hierarchyor with respectto thefunctionmanaged;and
(iv) exercisesdiscretionovertheday-to-dayoperationsof theactivity or function
for which the employee has authority. A first-line supervisor is not
consideredto be acting in a managerialcapacitymerely by virtue of the
supervisor'ssupervisory duties unless the employeessupervisedare
professional.
Section101(a)(44)(B)of theAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(44)(B),provides:
The term "executive capacity" meansan assignmentwithin an organization in which the
employeeprimarily--
(i) directsthemanagementof theorganizationor a majorcomponentor function
of theorganization;
(ii) establishesthe goals and policies of the organization,component,or
function;
(iii) exerciseswidelatitudein discretionarydecision-making;and
(iv) receivesonly generalsupervisionor directionfrom higher level executives,
theboardof directors,or stockholdersof theorganization.
Page4
In supportof theFormI-140,thebeneficiaryprovideda statementwhich containeda generaloverviewof his
proposedemploymentwith the petitioning entity. As the director has incorporatedthe beneficiary's
statementsinto his latestdecision,the AAO neednot repeatthat informationat this time. Also includedas
supportingevidencewasacopyof thepetitioner'sorganizationalchartin whichthebeneficiarywasdepicted
asthe company'sgeneralmanager,which is at the top-mosttier within the petitioner'ssix-personhierarchy.
The chartindicatesthat the beneficiary'sdirect subordinatesincludea salesandoperationmanageranda
positionthatwassimplytitled "administration."Thethreeremainingpositionslistedin the chartincludeone
salesandonemanufacturingemployee,bothdepictedasthesalesandoperationsmanager'ssubordinates,and
oneassistantto theadministrationposition.
As properlynotedin the director'sdecision,the beneficiaryfailed to providea discussionof his employment
with the foreign entity. As such,neitherthe beneficiary'sjob duties abroadnor his specific employment
historywith the foreignentity wasknownto U.S. CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)at thetime
thepetitionwasfiled.
Accordingly,on March 9, 2009,USCISissueda requestfor additionalevidence(RFE)instructingthe
petitioner to provide, in part, supplementaljob descriptionsof the beneficiary'sforeign and proposed
employment.Specifically,USCISaskedthepetitionerto listthebeneficiary'sjob dutieswith eachentityand
to providea percentagebreakdownindicatingthe amountof time that wasandwould be allocatedto thejob
dutiespertainingto thebeneficiary'sforeignandproposedemployment.Thepetitionerwasalsoaskedto
disclosethenames,positiontitles, andeducationalcredentialsof the beneficiary'ssubordinatesin the foreign
andU.S.positionsandto briefly describeeachsubordinateemployee'sjob duties.
The responseincluded the foreign and U.S. entities' respectiveorganizationalcharts and a percentage
breakdownlisting thebeneficiary'sdutiesandresponsibilitieswith eachentity. As thedirectorincludedboth
of thejob descriptionsin thedecisionthathecertifiedto theAAO, this informationneednotberestated.
On February 9, 2010, the director issued a decision finding the beneficiary ineligible for immigrant
classificationin the visa categoryof multinationalmanageror executive. In supportof his decision,the
director made numerous adverse findings. With regard to the beneficiary's proposed employment with the
U.S. entity, the director observedthat the information contained in the initially submitted organizational chart,
whichnameda total of six employeesincludingthebeneficiary,wasinconsistentwith Part5 of theFormI-
140,whereit wasshownthatthepetitionerhadsevenemployeesatthetime of filing. It is incumbentupon
the petitionerto resolveanyinconsistenciesin the recordby independentobjectiveevidence.Any attemptto
explain or reconcilesuchinconsistencieswill not suffice unlessthe petitionersubmitscompetentobjective
evidencepointingto wherethetruth lies. Matter of Ho, 19I&N Dec.582,591-92(BIA 1988). Thedirector
properly noted that neither position title nor ownership of an entity establishesthat a beneficiary's
employmentis within a qualifyingmanagerialor executivecapacity. The directorthen addressedthe
supplementaljob descriptionsthat were provided in responseto the RFE, finding that some of the
beneficiary'sdutieswith theforeignentitywerethoseof a first-line manager.
AlthoughtheAAO agreeswith thedirector'soverallconclusion,thedirector'sunderlyinganalysisis noton
pointwith theinformationthatwasprovidedin responseto theRFE. WhiletheAAO agreesthatsomeof the
itemslistedin thejob descriptionindicatethatnon-qualifyingtasksconsumeda portionof thebeneficiary's
time,thejob descriptionasawholeis lackingin sufficientdetailandthusprecludestheAAO frommakingan
Page5
informedconclusionasto what specifictasksthe beneficiaryperformedon a daily basisandpreciselyhow
muchof histime wasallocatedto theperformanceof non-qualifyingtasks.
Theprimaryportionof thebeneficiary'stime wasallocatedto generaljob responsibilitiesthatfail to conveya
meaningfulunderstandingof the specific tasksthat would actually be performed. For instance,the job
descriptionindicatedthat the beneficiaryspent20% of his time overseeingsalesmanagersandtheir staff.
However,no explanationwas providedasto the other staff membersthe beneficiarymanagednor did the
petitionerestablishspecificallyhow muchtime wasallocatedto managingsalesstaffversusthetime thatwas
allocatedto overseeingthemanagerialsalesstaff. Similarly,thepetitionerfailedto adequatelydescribewhat
specifictasksthat wereinvolvedin directingandcoordinatingsalesactivitiesandformulating,directing,and
coordinatingmarketingactivities,eachof whichwasalsoallocated20%of thebeneficiary'stime. Specifics
areclearly an importantindicationof whethera beneficiary'sdutiesareprimarily executiveor managerialin
nature;otherwisemeetingthedefinitionswouldsimplybeamatterof reiteratingtheregulations.FedinBros.
Co.,Ltd.v.Sava,724F. Supp.1103(E.D.N.Y.1989),affd, 905F.2d41(2d.Cir. 1990).It is notedthatthe
actualdutiesthemselvesrevealthetruenatureof theemployment.Id. at 1108.Asthebeneficiary'sjob duties
is one the primary elementsthat determineswhetherthe employmentis within a qualifying managerialor
executivecapacity,the lack of a sufficiently detailedjob descriptionprecludesUSCIS from being ableto
fully assessthebeneficiary'seligibility for theimmigrantclassification.
While theAAO acknowledgesthat no beneficiaryis requiredto allocate100%of his time to managerial-or
executive-leveltasks, the petitioner must establishthat the beneficiary'snon-qualifying tasks are only
incidentalto his/herpositioneitherwith the foreign or U.S. entity. An employeewho "primarily" performs
the tasksnecessaryto producea productor to provideservicesis not consideredto be "primarily" employed
in a managerialor executivecapacity. Seesections101(a)(44)(A)and (B) of the Act (requiringthat one
"primarily" performthe enumeratedmanagerialor executiveduties);seealsoMatter of ChurchScientology
International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm. 1988). The record in the presentmatter lacks sufficient
informationthat adequatelydescribesthe beneficiary'sjob dutieswith the foreignentity. Moreover,the
directorproperlypointedoutthattherecorddoesnot includeevidenceto establishthatthebeneficiarywas
employedabroadas claimed. Therefore,basedon these findings, the AAO cannot concludethat the
beneficiary was employed abroad during the requisite time period or that he was employed abroad within a
qualifyingmanagerialorexecutivecapacityasrequiredby 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B).
Similarly, with regardto the beneficiary'sproposedemployment,the contentof thejob descriptionprovided
in responseto the RFE is devoid of specific information aboutthe beneficiary'sproposedjob duties. As
properlypointedout by thedirector,therecordlacksconsistentdocumentationestablishingexactlywhomthe
petitioneremployedat thetime theFormI-140 wasfiled. Althougha detailedjob descriptionis admittedlya
keycomponentin determiningthepetitioner'seligibility,USCISconsidersotherkeyfactorsaswell,including
the hiring organization'sstaffing composition. A job descriptionalone would be meaninglessif the
organizationthat seeksto hire the beneficiarydoesnot havethe humanresourcesto relievethat individual
from having to primarily perform non-qualifyingoperationaljob duties. Moreover,in reviewing the
relevanceof thenumberof employeesapetitionerhas,federalcourtshavegenerallyagreedthatUSCIS"may
properlyconsideranorganization'ssmallsizeasonefactorin assessingwhetherits operationsaresubstantial
enoughto supporta manager."Family,Inc. v. U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices,469F.3d 1313,
1316(9thCir.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).
Page6
In the presentmatter,the recordhasnot beensupplementedwith documentationto resolvethe inconsistency
with regardto thepetitioner'sstaffingcompositionatthetime of filing. Thus,in light of theoverly vaguejob
descriptionand the lack of documentationregardingthe beneficiary'ssupportstaff, the AAO finds that it
cannotconcludethat the petitionerhasthe capabilityof employingthe beneficiaryin a qualifying capacity
wheretheprimaryportionof his time wouldbeallocatedto managerial-or executive-leveljob duties.
Theremainingissuethatwasaddressedin thedirector'sdecisionfocusesonthebeneficiary'ssignatureat Part
8 of the FormI-140. Namely,the directordeterminedthatthe beneficiary'ssignatureindicatesthatthe
beneficiaryhasself-petitionedandthatanemployerhasnotpetitionedonhisbehalfasisstatutorilyrequired.
In further addressingthis issue,the directorreviewedthe petitioner'scorporatedocuments,which showthat
not the beneficiary,was namedasthe petitioner'sincorporator,registeredagent,and sole
director. Thedirectorfurthernotedthat the beneficiaryis not a stockholderof eitherthe foreign or the U.S.
entity. Thedirectordeterminedthatthebeneficiaryis not statutorilypermittedto self-petitionanddeniedthe
FormI-140onthis basisaswell.
First-preferenceimmigrantstatusundersection203(b)(1)(C)of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C),requires
that the beneficiary have a permanentemploymentoffer from the petitioner. A petitioner who is a
nonimmigranttemporaryworker is not competentto offer permanentemploymentto analienbeneficiaryfor
the purposeof obtainingan immigrantvisa for thebeneficiaryundersection203(b)(1)(C)of the Act. Matter
of Thornhill,18I&N Dec.34(Comm.1981).
The petitionerin the presentmatterhasnot disputedthe director'sfindings or providedevidenceto establish
that the beneficiary has not self-petitioned. Therefore,in light of the director's findings, the statutory
requirements,andthe precedentcaselaw cited above,the AAO concludesthat the beneficiaryhasfailed to
overcometheadversefinding andwill affirm thedirector'sconclusion.
Additionally, while not addressedin the director'sdecision,the recordcontainsinconsistentdocumentation
with regardto the petitioner'sownership.Namely,while the minutesof specialstockholdermeetingheldby
. on April 12,2004 show that ownership of the petitioning entity was conveyed
to , scheduleE of thepetitioner's2007tax returnshowsthat
owns 100%of the petitioner'sstock. The factscontainedwithin thesedocumentsregardingthe petitioner's
ownershipareinconsistentandthis inconsistencyhasnot beenreconciledthroughanyof the documentation
on record. SeeMatter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 591-92. Moreover,if the assertionmadeon scheduleE of the
2007tax returnistrue,it is not clearthattheprospectiveU.S.employerandtheforeignentitythatpurportedly
employedthe beneficiaryabroadhavea qualifying parent-subsidiaryor affiliate relationship,which would
resultin anadditionaladversefinding.
An applicationor petition that fails to complywith the technicalrequirementsof the law maybe deniedby
theAAO evenif theServiceCenterdoesnotidentifyall of thegroundsfor denialin theinitialdecision.See
SpencerEnterprises,Inc.v. UnitedStates,229F. Supp.2d 1025,1043(E.D.Cal.2001),affd, 345F.3d683
(9thCir. 2003);seealsoSoltanev. DOJ,381F.3d143,145(3dCir. 2004)(notingthattheAAO reviews
appealson a denovobasis). Therefore,basedontheadditionalfindingsdiscussedabove,this petitioncannot
beapproved.
Page7
The petitionwill be deniedfor the abovestatedreasons,with eachconsideredas an independentand
alternativebasisfor denial. In visa petition proceedings,the burdenof proving eligibility for the benefit
soughtremainsentirelywith the petitioner. Section291of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361. Thepetitionerhasnot
sustainedthatburden.
ORDER: The director's decision dated February9, 2010, to deny the visa petition is
affirmed. Thepetitionwill bedenied.