dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U. S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOfEce(AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve.N.W., Ms 2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: OFFICE:TEXASSERVICECENTER
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionforAlienWorkerasaMultinationalExecutiveorManagerPursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase. All of thedocuments
relatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedtotheofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believethe AAO inappropriatelyappliedthe law in reachingits decision,or you haveadditional
information that you wish to have considered,you may file a motion to reconsideror a motion to reopen in
accordancewith the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha motioncanbe foundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.Do not file any motion
directly with the AAO. Pleasebeawarethat8C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotiontobefiledwithin
30 daysof the decisionthat themotion seeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION:Thepreferencevisapetitionwasdeniedby theDirector,TexasServiceCenter.Thematteris
nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)onappeal.Theappealwill bedismissed.
The petitioner is a Texascorporationthat seeksto employ the beneficiaryas its "president/CEO."
Accordingly,thepetitionerendeavorstoclassifythebeneficiaryasanemployment-basedimmigrantpursuant
to section203(b)(1)(C)of the ImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8U.S.C.§ ll53(b)(1)(C), as a
multinationalexecutiveor manager.
In supportof theFormI-140thepetitionersubmitteda statementdatedDecember15,2009,whichcontained
relevantinformationpertainingto the petitioner'seligibility, includingan overviewof the petitioner's
business,the businessof its foreign parententity, and descriptionsof the beneficiary*sforeign and proposed
employment.Thepetitioneralsoprovidedsupportingevidencein theformof businessandtax documents.
Thedirectorreviewedthepetitioner'ssubmissionsanddeterminedthatthepetitiondid notwarrantapproval.
Thedirectorthereforeissueda requestfor evidence(RFE)datedJuly 13,2010informingthepetitionerthat
furtherevidencewasneedto showthat 1)thebeneficiarywasemployedabroadin a qualifyingcapacity;
2)thebeneficiarywouldbeemployedin theUnitedStatesin a qualifyingcapacity;and3)thepetitionerhas
the ability to pay the beneficiary'sprofferedwage. The petitionerprovideda responseaddressingthe
director'srequests.Theresponseincludeda statementfromcounseldatedAugust13,2010. Thestatement
containedsupplementaljob descriptionspertainingto thebeneficiary'sforeignandproposedemploymentas
wellaspayrollandtaxdocumentsshowingemployeewagesandsalaries.
After reviewingtherecord,thedirectorconcludedthatthepetitionerfailedto establishthatthebeneficiary
wasemployedabroador that he would be employedin the UnitedStatesin a qualifyingmanagerialor
executive capacity. The director also determinedthat the petitioner failed to establishits ability to pay the
beneficiary'sprofferedwage. Thedirectorthereforeissueda decisiondatedOctober26,2010denyingthe
petition.
On appeal,counseldisputesthe groundsfor denialandsubmitsa brief contendingthat thepetitionerhas
satisfiedtheeligibility requirements.
After reviewingthe petitioner'ssubmissions,the AAO finds that the petitionerhassubmittedsufficient
evidenceto establishits ability to pay the beneficiary's proffered wage,thus overcoming one of the grounds
for denial. Notwithstandingthis finding,the AAO neverthelessconcludesthat counsel'sassertionswith
regardto thebeneficiary'semploymentcapacityin his foreignandproposedpositionsarenotpersuasiveand
fail to overcomethedirector'sdenial.Thediscussionbelowwill addresstherelevantdocumentationandwill
explaintheunderlyingreasoningfor theAAO's conclusion.
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 yearsprecedingthetime of the
Page3
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 limitingthis provisionto only thoseexecutivesandmanagerswho
havepreviouslyworkedfora firm,corporationorotherlegalentity,oranaffiliateor subsidiaryof thatentity,
andwhoarecomingto theUnitedStatesto workfor thesameentity,or its affiliateor subsidiary.A United
Statesemployermayfile apetitiononFormI-140for classificationof analienundersection203(b)(1)(C)of
theAct asamultinationalexecutiveormanager.No laborcertificationisrequiredfor thisclassification.The
prospectiveemployerin theUnitedStatesmustfurnishajob offerin theformof a statementwhichindicates
thatthealienis tobeemployedin theUnitedStatesin a managerialor executivecapacity.Sucha statement
mustclearlydescribethedutiestobeperformedbythealien.
Thetwo primaryissuesthat will be addressedin this proceedingcall for an analysisof the beneficiary's
positionabroadandhis proposedpositionwith theU.S.entityfor thepurposeof determiningwhetherthe
petitionerprovidedsufficientevidenceto establishthat thebeneficiarywasandwouldbe employedin a
qualifyingmanagerialorexecutivecapacity.
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,oradepartmentorsubdivisionof 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, 8 U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(44)(B),provides:
The term "executivecapacity"meansan assignmentwithin an organizationin which the
employeeprimarily--
Page4
(i) directsthemanagementof theorganizationoramajorcomponentor function
of theorganization;
(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 examiningthe executiveor managerialcapacityof the beneficiary,the AAO will look first to the
petitioner'sdescriptionof thejob duties. See8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(5).Recitingthebeneficiary'svaguejob
responsibilitiesorbroadly-castbusinessobjectivesisnotsufficient,astheactualdutiesthemselveswill reveal
thetruenatureof theemployment.FedinBros.Co, Ltd. v. Sava,724F. Supp.I 103,1108(E.D.N.Y.1989),
affd, 905F.2d41(2d.Cir. 1990).
TheAAO findsthatit is appropriateto considerotherrelevantfactors,suchasan entity's organizational
hierarchy,which showsthe entity's complexityand the beneficiary'splacementin relation to other
employees,aswell asanentity'soverallstaffing,whichallowstheAAO to gaugetheextentto whichthat
entitywasor is ableto relievethebeneficiaryfromhavingto focustheprimaryportionof his timeon the
performanceof non-qualifyingoperationaltasks.
Turning first to the beneficiary'semploymentabroad,the record containsa deficientjob description
comprisedprimarily of generalinformationwhich, without furtherdetail, indicatesthat the beneficiary
allocateda significantportionof his timeto non-qualifyingjob dutiesincludingnegotiatingclientcontracts,
promotingthe company'sproductsand services,recruiting personnel,developingand implementing
marketingstrategies,partakingin meetingsfor the purposeof negotiatingconfidentialityand service
agreements,and preparingand completingsalescontracts, While counselstatesthat the beneficiary's
positionabroadwasat thetop of the foreignentity's organizationalhierarchyandfurtherpointsout the
significantinfluencethebeneficiaryhadontheforeignentity'sbusinessprogress,thefactof thematteris that
theAAO cannotconcludethatthebeneficiarywasemployedabroadin a qualifyingmanagerialor executive
capacitywithoutadetaileddelineationof theactualjob dutiesthebeneficiaryperformed.
Despitethe fact that the directorexpresslyinstructedthe petitionerof the acceptableformatof thejob
description-to includea list of thebeneficiary'sjob dutiesaccompaniedbyapercentagebreakdownshowing
how muchtime wasallocatedto eachitem on the list-the petitioner'sresponse,as well as counsel's
statementon appeal,containedoverly broadstatements,which failed to establishthat the beneficiary
allocatedhis timeprimarily to taskswithin a qualifyingmanagerialor executivecapacity. For instance,
counsel'sclaim that the beneficiarymanaged"severalmajor organizationalcomponentsand related
functions"includingfinance,sales,andmarketing,tells the AAO little aboutwhatspecificactivitiesthe
beneficiaryengagedin to managethesecomponents.Merely claimingthat the beneficiary"managed"
without specifyingwhat actualmanagerialtaskshe performedon a daily basisdoesnot establishthe
managerialnatureof theposition. It is theactualtasksperformedthatdefinethemanagerialor executive
natureof agivenposition.FedinBros.Co.,Ltd v.Sava,724F.Supp.at 1108.
Page5
Whilecounselassertsthatthebeneficiarywaschargedwith overseeingtheworkof professionalsubordinates,
theorganizationalchartthatthepetitionersubmittedin responseto theRFEshowsthatthebeneficiaryhad
one direct subordinatewhosemanagerialtitle and placementwithin the foreign entity's organizational
hierarchyindicatesthatthisindividualwasa managerialemployee.Thepetitionerdid notprovidesufficient
informationto explainhowtheforeignentity'sorganizationalhierarchywasconduciveto thebeneficiary's
allegedmanagementandsupervisionof multiplesubordinateemployees.
Turningto theissueof thebeneficiary'sproposedemploymentwith theU.S.petitioner,whichoperatesasa
gasstationand conveniencestore,counselemphasizesthe beneficiary'stop-mostplacementwithin the
petitioner'sorganizationalhierarchyandhisdiscretionaryauthorityin settinggoalsandpoliciesregardingthe
petitioner'sexpansion,investment,budgeting,marketing,andpersonnel,the latterof whichwouldinclude
overseeingprofessionalandmanagerialsubordinateemployees.Counsel'sstatementslackprobativevaluein
that theyrely primarily on generalterminologyand paraphrasedversionsof the statutorydefinitionsto
describethe proposedemployment.The statementfails to includespecificinformationdelineatingthe
beneficiary'sactualdaily taskswithin the scopeof thepetitioner'sconveniencestore/gasstationoperation.
Specificsare clearlyan importantindicationof whethera beneficiary'sdutiesareprimarilyexecutiveor
managerialin nature;otherwisemeetingthe definitionswould simply be a matterof reiteratingthe
regulations.FedinBros.Co.,Ltd. v.Sava,724F.Supp.I 103.
The petitionerhas failed to adequatelydescribethe job dutiesthe beneficiaryperformedduring his
employmentabroadandthejob dutieshewouldperformin theproposedposition.Asnotedabove,adetailed
job descriptionis an essentialelementin determiningwhat portion of the beneficiary'sforeignand/or
proposedemploymentwasor is comprisedof qualifyingversusnon-qualifyingjob duties. WhiletheAAO
acknowledgesthatnobeneficiaryis requiredto allocate100%of histimeto managerial-or executive-level
tasks,thepetitionermustestablishthatthenon-qualifyingtasksthebeneficiaryperformedabroadandwould
performfor the U.S.entity areonly incidentalto the proposedposition. An employeewho "primarily"
performsthetasksnecessaryto producea productor to provideservicesis notconsideredto be "primarily"
employedin amanagerialor executivecapacity.Seesections101(a)(44)(A)and(B) of theAct (requiringthat
one "primarily" performthe enumeratedmanagerialor executiveduties);see also Matter of Church
Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm. 1988).
TheAAO cannotaccuratelyassesshow muchof thebeneficiary'stime wasandwould beattributedto tasks
within a qualifying managerialor executivecapacitywithout a detaileddescription of eachposition. In light
of the fact that the recordis missingkey informationregardingthe beneficiary'sjob dutiesin his former
position with the foreign entity and in his proposedposition with the U.S. entity, the AAO cannot
affirmativelyconcludethat the beneficiarywasemployedabroadand that he would be employedin the
UnitedStatesin a qualifyingmanagerialor executivecapacity. Therefore,the instantpetitioncannotbe
approved.
In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenof provingeligibility for thebenefitsoughtremainsentirelywith the
petitioner.Section291of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361.Thepetitionerhasnotsustainedthatburden.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.