dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U. S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve.N.W., MS 2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
8 U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: NAY 3 1 2012 OFFICE:TEXASSERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionforAlienWorkerasaMultinationalExecutiveorManagerPursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase. All of thedocuments
relatedtothismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believethe law wasinappropriatelyappliedby us in reachingour decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile amotiontoreconsideror amotiontoreopen.The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha requestcan be foundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5. All motionsmustbe
submittedtotheofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcaseby filing aFormI-290B,Noticeof AppealorMotion,
with a fee of $630. Do not file any motion directly with the AAO. Pleasebe awarethat 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthatanymotionmustbefiledwithin 30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto
reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION:Thepreferencevisapetitionwasdeniedby theDirector,TexasServiceCenter.Thematteris
nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)onappeal.Theappealwill bedismissed.
Thepetitioneris a Texascorporationthatseeksto employthebeneficiaryasits president.Accordingly,the
petitionerendeavorsto classifythe beneficiaryas an employment-basedimmigrantpursuantto section
203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C),asa multinational
executiveor manager.
In supportof theFormI-140thepetitionersubmittedsupportingevidence,includingthepetitioner'sfinancial
andcorporatedocumentsaswellasdocumentspertainingtothepetitioner'sforeignaffiliate.
Thedirectorreviewedthepetitioner'ssubmissionsanddeterminedthatthepetitionerdidnotsubmitsufficient
evidenceto establisheligibility. Thedirectorthereforeissueda requestfor evidence(RFE)datedJune29,
2006informingthepetitionerof variousdocumentarydeficiencies.Thedirectorinstructedthepetitionerto
providea definitivestatementdescribingthe beneficiary'sforeignandproposedemployment,listing the
beneficiary'sdirectsubordinatesaswell astheirrespectivejob titles,descriptionsof duties,andeducational
backgrounds.Thepetitionerwasalsoaskedto provideevidenceestablishingthat thebeneficiarywould
overseethe work of managerialor professionalemployees.Thedirectorthereforeaskedthepetitionerto
provideorganizationalchartsdepictingtheforeignandU.S.entities'respectiveorganizationalhierarchiesand
to includethenamesandjob titlesof theemployeeswithineachorganization.
Thepetitioner'sresponseincludeda statementdatedSeptember19,2006in whichthepetitionerfocusedon
thebeneficiary'sproposedemployment,providinginformationaboutthebeneficiary'sU.S.job dutiesand
responsibilitiesaswellasinformationaboutthebeneficiary'ssubordinates,suchastheirnames,job titles,job
duties,andeducationalcredentials.
With regardto theforeignemployment,theonly informationprovidedwasthedatetheforeignentitywas
established-1972. Thepetitionerdid not describethebeneficiary'semploymentabroadin termsof the
dutiesperformedor theemployeessupervised.Thepetitionerdid, however,providethe foreignentity's
organizational chart listing the beneficiary at the top of the organizational hierarchy, subordinate only to the
board of directors. The chart indicated that the beneficiary's only subordinatewas the company's vice
president,who manageda financedirectorandan operationsmanager.While the latterpositionwasnot
depictedashavingsubordinates,thefinancemanagerwasdepictedassupervisingthesitesupervisor,who
supervisedsevenunnamedcontractworkers.
TheAAO furthernotesthatthepetitionerprovidedanorganizationalchartdepictingthehierarchyof a U.S.
entitynamed Althoughthebeneficiarywasdepictedasthecompany'spresidentand
(whomthe petitioner'soriginal chartnamedas its vice president)was depictedas the entity's
businessdevelopmentmanager,no explanationwasprovidedasto why thebeneficiaryandthe individual
who waspreviouslyportrayedashis directsubordinateat thepetitioningentity,arebeingdepictedin the
organizationalchartof an entirelyseparatecompany,whoseconnectionto the petitioner,if any,wasnot
explained. Althoughthe petitionerprovideda numberof its tax andcorporatedocuments,thereis no
indicationin therecordthatthepetitioner'sownorganizationalchartwasprovided.
After reviewingtherecord,thedirectorconcludedthatthepetitionerfailedto establishthatthebeneficiary
was employedabroador that he would be employedin the UnitedStatesin a qualifyingmanagerialor
Page3
executivecapacity.Additionally,thedirectorreliedonthecommonlawdefinitionof theterm"employee"in
concludingthat thepetitionerandthe beneficiarydo not havean employer-employeerelationship. The
directorissuedadecisiondatedMay 10,2010denyingthepetitionbasedonthesethreefindings.
Onappeal,counselsubmitsa briefaddressi the oundsfor denial. Counselstatesthatthepetitionerdoes
nothavea businessrelationshipwith andcontendsthattheserviceerroneouslyconsidered
documentationthatthepetitionerdid notsubmit. Counselassertsthatthebeneficiarywill beemployedin a
qualifyingmanagerialcapacityandassertsthatthepreviouslyprovidedjob descriptionsadequatelyconvey
thebeneficiary'squalifyingemployment.Counselalsochallengesthedirector'sadversefindingwith regard
to the beneficiary'sprior employmentwith the foreign entity, pointing out the petitioner'spreviously
approvedL-1 employmentof thebeneficiaryandassertingthatsuchpriorapprovalsareanindicationthatthe
petitionerhasalreadyestablishedthebeneficiary'squalifyingemploymentabroad.
TheAAO findsthatcounsel'sargumentsarenotpersuasiveandfail to overcomethedirector'sdenial. The
petitioner'ssubmissionshavebeenreviewedandall relevantdocumentsthatpertainto key issuesin this
matterwill befully addressedin thediscussionbelow.
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 the alien,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 enter the United Statesin order to continueto renderservicesto the
sameemployeror to a subsidiaryor affiliate thereofin a capacitythat is
managerialor executive.
Thelanguageof thestatuteis specificin limiting thisprovisionto only thoseexecutivesandmanagerswho
havepreviouslyworkedfor afirm, corporationor otherlegalentity,oranaffiliateorsubsidiaryof thatentity,
andwhoarecomingtotheUnitedStatestoworkforthesameentity,or itsaffiliateorsubsidiary.
A United Statesemployermay file a petitionon Form I-140 for classificationof an alienundersection
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.
Thefirst two issuesto beaddressedin this proceedingcall for ananalysisof thebeneficiary'sforeignand
proposedemployment. Specifically,the AAO will examinethe recordto determinewhethersufficient
Page4
evidencewassubmittedto establishthat thebeneficiarywasemployedabroadandwhetherhe would be
employedin theUnitedStatesin aqualifyingmanagerialorexecutivecapacity.
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 controlsthe work of other supervisory,professional,or
managerialemployees,or managesan essentialfunction within the
organization,oradepartmentor subdivisionof theorganization;
(iii) if anotheremployeeor otheremployeesare directly supervised,hasthe
authorityto hire and fire or recommendthoseas well as otherpersonnel
actions(suchaspromotionandleaveauthorization),or if nootheremployee
is directlysupervised,functionsat a seniorlevelwithin 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,8U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(44)(B),provides:
The term "executivecapacity"meansan assignmentwithin an organizationin which the
employeeprimarily--
(i) directsthemanagementof theorganizationor a majorcomponentor function
of the organization;
(ii) establishesthe goals and policies of the organization,component,or
function;
(iii) exerciseswidelatitudein discretionarydecision-making;and
(iv) receivesonly generalsupervisionor directionfromhigherlevelexecutives,
theboardof directors,or stockholdersof theorganization.
In examiningtheexecutiveormanagerialcapacityof thebeneficiary,theAAO will lookfirsttothejob duties
thatcomprisedorwill comprisetheemploymentin question.See8C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(5).Specificsareclearly
an importantindicationof whethera beneficiary'sdutiesare primarily executiveor managerialin nature;
otherwisemeetingthedefinitionswouldsimplybea matterof reiteratingtheregulations.
Page5
Ltd. v. Sava,724F. Supp.1103(E.D.N.Y.1989),affd, 905F.2d41 (2d. Cir. 1990). The actualduties
themselvesrevealthetruenatureof theemployment.Id. at 1108.
Thepetitionerfailedto provideadescriptionof thebeneficiary'semploymentabroad,despitethefactthatthe
directorexpresslyrequestedthisinformation.Failureto submitrequestedevidencethatprecludesa material
line of inquiry shallbe groundsfor denyingthepetition.8C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(14).Counsel'srelianceon
previouslyapprovedL-1 petitionsthatthepetitionerfiled onbehalfof thebeneficiaryis misplacedaseach
nonimmigrantandimmigrantpetitionis aseparaterecordof proceedingwith aseparateburdenof proof;each
petitionmustthereforestandon its own individual merits. U.S. Citizenshipand IrmnigrationServices
(USCIS)isnotrequiredtoassumetheburdenof searchingthroughpreviouslyprovidedevidencesubmittedin
supportof otherpetitionsto determinetheapprovabilityof thepetitionat handin thepresentmatter. The
prior nommmigrantapprovalsdo not precludeUSCISfromdenyinganextensionpetition. Seee.g.Texas
A&M Univ. v. Upchurch,99 Fed.Appx, 556, 2004WL 1240482(5th Cir. 2004). The approvalof a
nonimmigrantpetitionin nowayguaranteesthatUSCISwill approveanimmigrantpetitionfiledonbehalfof
thesamebeneficiary.It is not uncommonfor USCISto denyan I-140immigrantpetitiondespitea prior
approvalof a nonimmigrantI-129L-1 petition.See,e.g.,QDataConsulting,Inc. v.INS,293F. Supp.2dat
25;IKEA USv. USDept.ofJustice,48F. Supp.2d22(D.D.C.1999)FedinBrothersCo,Ltd. v.Sava,724F.
Supp.1103(E.D.N.Y.1989).
Althoughthepetitionerprovidedtheforeignentity'sorganizationalchartin whichthebeneficiary'sposition
wasdepicted,this documentalone,withouta detaileddelineationof the tasksthebeneficiarycarriedout
duringhis employmentabroad,is notsufficientto allow theAAO to ascertainwhetherthebeneficiarywas
employedin aqualifyingmanagerialorexecutivecapacity.Therefore,theappealwill bedismissed.
Turningto theissueof thebeneficiary'sproposedemploymentwith theU.S.entity,theAAO findsthatthe
job descriptionofferedin theRFEresponsewasdeficient,lackingsufficientrelevantinformationaboutthe
beneficiary'sactualdaily job dutiesin the scopeof the petitioner'sretail operation. For instance,the
petitionerstatedthat the beneficiaryhas the insideknowledgeto assessthe petitioner'sstrengthsand
weaknessesin orderto "decidewhichmacroenvironmentaltrendsarerelevantto thecompany."However,
the petitioner did not explain what was meant by "macro environmental trends," nor is there any clarifying
information to explain how thebeneñeiary's assessmentultimately affectsthe petitioner's daily operations.
Thepetitioneralsostatedthatthebeneficiaryfinalizeslong-termbusinessplans,whichrequiresthatlie seek
outbusinessopportunitiesandsetpersonnelpolicies.It isunclearhowseekingoutbusinessopportunitiescan
be deemeda qualifyingtask. Theclaim thatthebeneficiaryassignsthetaskof determiningfeasibilityof
variousbusinessopportunitiesis alsounclear,asnoneof thebeneficiary'ssubordinatesarespecificallytasked
with thisjob duty. Thepetitionerfurtherstatesthatthebeneficiarywill organizeanddirectby overseeingthe
overallorganization,hiringandfiring employees,andtrainingandmentoringtop-levelmanagers.In light of
thepetitioner'sstaffingat thetime theFormI-140wasfiled, it is unclearhow thebeneficiarycouldhave
allocateda significantportionof histimeto hiring,firing, andtrainingemployees.Asthepetitionerdid not
employmultipletop-levelmanagersat thetimeof filing, it is unclearhowthepetitionercanclaimthathiring
andtrainingtop-levelmanagerswasa componentof theproposedemployment.While thepetitionermay
eventuallyevolveto a levelof organizationalcomplexitywhereinhiringandfiring becomesoneof thekey
componentsof thebeneficiary'sposition,it is notcredibleto statethatthiswasanexistingcomponentof the
proposedemploymentat thetimeof filing thepetition. A petitionermustestablisheligibility at thetimeof
filing. 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(1).A petitioncannotbe approvedat a future dateafter the petitioneror
Page6
beneficiarybecomeseligibleundera newsetof facts. Matter ofKatigbak, 14I&N Dec.45, 49 (Comm.
1971).
Additionally,portionsof thebeneficiary'sjob descriptionconsistof seeminglynon-qualifyingoperational
tasks,such as attendingindustry eventsand coachingnon-managerialemployees. While the AAO
acknowledgesthatnobeneficiaryis requiredto allocate100%of his timeto managerial-or executive-level
tasks,thepetitionermustestablishthat the non-qualifyingtasksthe beneficiarywouldperformare only
incidentalto theproposedposition.An employeewho"primarily"performsthetasksnecessarytoproducea
productor to provideservicesis not consideredto be "primarily"employedin a managerialor executive
capacity. Seesections101(a)(44)(A)and (B) of the Act (requiringthat one "primarily" performthe
enumeratedmanagerialor executiveduties);seealsoMatter of ChurchScientologyInternational,19I&N
Dec.593,604(Comm.1988).
Thepetitionerofferedajob descriptionthatdid notconveya meaningfulunderstandingof thespecifictasks
thebeneficiarywould performon a daily basiswithin the scopeof the organizationalhierarchythat the
petitionerhadin placeatthetimethepetitionwasfiled. Basedontheorganizationalchartthatthepetitioner
providedinitially in supportof theFormI-140,thepetitionerwascomprisedof five employees,includingthe
beneficiaryhimself.TheAAO notesthatthisinformationisnotconsistentwith theclaimthepetitionermade
at Part5, No. 2 of theFormI-140,whichindicatesthatthepetitionerhada totalof sevenemployees.It is
incumbentuponthepetitionerto resolveanyinconsistenciesin therecordby independentobjectiveevidence.
Any attemptto explainor reconcilesuchinconsistencieswill not sufficeunlessthe petitionersubmits
competentobjectiveevidencepointingto wherethetruthlies. MatterofHo, 19I&N Dec.582,591-92(BIA
1988).Whilethedirectorexpresslyinstructedthepetitioner(viatheRFE)toprovideanorganizationalchart
depictingthepetitioner'sorganizationalhierarchyat thetime of filing the petition,thepetitionerinstead
providedanorganizationalchartpertainingto Despitethefactthatthebeneficiaryandhis
allegedsubordinatewith the U.S. entitywereboth namedin organizationalchartas
presidentandbusinessdevelopmentmanager,respectively,the relevanceof this documenthasnot been
established.
While counsel claims to have reviewed the file in its entirety and assertsthat there are no documents with the
nameof within the record, the fact remainsthat organizationalchart
was provided by the petitioner as part of the petitioner's RFE exhibit titled: "Evidence of Doing Businessby
U.S.Company."If counselthoroughlyreviewedacopyof thepetitioner'srecordof proceedingasheclaims
to havedone,thereis noreasonwhy thisseeminglyirrelevantdocumentwasnotlocated,asboththeservice
centerandtheAAO havepointedouttheinclusionof thisdocumentin thepetitioner'srecordof proceeding.
Regardless,thepetitionerfailedto providea copyof its own organizationalchartasrequested.Therefore,
evenif achartfor werenotanissue,thereneverthelessremainstheissueof thepetitioner's
failuretoprovidearelevantdocumentfor purposesof determiningthepetitioner'seligibility.
In summary,the AAO findsthat neitherthe beneficiary'sjob descriptionnor evidenceof the petitioner's
organizationalhierarchysupportstheclaimthatthebeneficiarywouldbe employedin theUnitedStatesin a
qualifyingmanagerialorexecutivecapacity.Forthisadditionalreason,theappealwill bedismissed.
Turningnowtothethirdfindingcitedin thedirector'sdecision-thatthebeneficiarywouldnotbeanemployee
of thepetitioningentity,therecordshowsthatthepetitionerdid notdisputethedirector'sfindingon appeal.
Page7
Therefore,byvirtueof failingtoaddressanadversefmdingonappeal,theAAOconcludesthatthepetitionerhas
effectivelyconcededthatfmdingandtheappealwill bedismissedonthisbasisaswell.
In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenof provingeligibility for thebenefitsoughtremainsentirelywith the
petitioner.Section291of theAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1361.Thepetitionerhasnotsustainedthatburden.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.