dismissed EB-1C Case: Customer Service And Sales

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U. S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve.N.W., MS2090
8 Washington,DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: 0H 2 1 ?[H2 OFFICE:TEXASSERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien WorkerasaMultinationalExecutiveor 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
relatedtothismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat
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 FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion, with a fee of $630. The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha requestcanbe foundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.Do not file any motion
directly with theAAO. Pleasebeawarethat8C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthatanymotionmustbefiled
within 30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseekstoreconsiderorreopen.
Thankyou,
RonRosenberg
ActingChief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION:Thepreferencevisapetitionwasdeniedby theDirector,TexasServiceCenter.Thematteris
nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)onappeal.Theappealwill bedismissed.
Thepetitioneris a Texascorporationthatseeksto employthebeneficiaryasits customerserviceandsales
director.Accordingly,thepetitionerendeavorsto classifythebeneficiaryasanemployment-basedimmigrant
pursuantto section203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C),
asamultinationalexecutiveormanager.
In supportof theFormI-140thepetitionersubmitteda statementdatedMarch12,2010,which contained
relevantinformationpertainingto the petitioner'seligibility. The petitioneraddressedthe issueof the
beneficiary'sproposedemploymentby providinga list of the beneficiary'sjob responsibilitiesandtheir
respectivetimeallocations.Thepetitioneralsoprovidedsupportingevidencein theformof taxandbusiness
documentspertainingtobothentities.
Thedirectorreviewedthepetitioner'ssubmissionsanddeterminedthatthepetitiondid notwarrantapproval.
Thedirectorthereforeissueda requestfor evidence(RFE)datedJune22,2011informingthepetitionerof
variousevidentiarydeficiencies.Amongthe issuesdiscussedin the RFEwasthe beneficiary'sproposed
employmentwith thepetitioningentity. Specifically,the directorinstructedthepetitionerto describethe
petitioner'sstaffingby disclosingthenumberof employeesandtheirrespectivejob dutiesandby providing
an organizationalchartillustratingthe beneficiary'spositionwithin the contextof thepetitioner'sstaffing
hierarchy.Thedirectoralsoaskedthepetitionerto providea moredetaileddescriptionof thebeneficiary's
proposedpositionby listinghisproposedjob dutiesandthepercentageof timethebeneficiarywouldallocate
toeachitemlisted.
Additionally, the directoraddressedthe issueof ability to pay the wageofferedof $90,000per year,
instructingthepetitionerto provideits 2010taxreturn,anaudited2010financialstatement,or a 2010annual
report. Thedirectoralsoindicatedthatthepetitionershouldsubmitevidencein theformof thebeneficiary's
wagereports,whichdemonstrateanywagesthebeneficiaryhadbeenpaidsincethepetitionwasfiled.
In response to the RFE, the petitioner provided a letter dated July 16, 2011, containing the same list of job
responsibilities that were contained in the petitioner's initial support statement. The letter stressedthe
beneficiary's job dutiesasbeing part of an essentialfunction without which the petitioner would be unableto
generaterevenue. The letter further referred to the beneficiary as the key point of contact between the
petitionerand its clientsin termsof interactingwith clients and addressingtheir concerns,as well as
representingthepetitionerin variousnegotiations.Theletterindicatedthatthebeneficiarywoulddirectand
overseemarketanalysis,statisticalinterpretation,salesforecasting,andsalesdataevaluationandhe would
managecustomerservicedevelopmentby delegatingtasksto subordinatesand meetingwith staff and
reviewingstaffperformance.
The petitioneralsocompliedwith the requestfor a copy of its organizationalchart,which illustratesa
complexorganization,completewith a topmanagerialtier,departmentsandtheirrespectivesupervisors,and
numerousemployeesundereachdepartmenthead. Althoughthechartis titled in thepetitioner'snameand
includesthebeneficiaryin hisproposedpositiontitle, it is unclearhowthischartis indicativeof anentitythat
namedfive employeesin its 2010thirdquarterlyemployer'sreport,whichreflectedthepetitioner'sstaffingat
thetime of filing. It is notedthatthe specificinstructionsin theRFEwerefor thepetitionerto provide
separateorganizationalchartsdepictingtheforeignentity,wherethebeneficiarywaspreviouslyemployed,
Page3
anda chartdepictingtheU.S.entity,wherethebeneficiaryis seekingemployment.Theorganizationalchart
thepetitionerprovidedin responseto theRFEdoesnotaddressthedirector'sspecificobjective,whichwasto
obtainanaccuratedepictionof thepetitioner'sstaffingatthetimeof filing.
Additionally,with regardto theability to payissue,thepetitionerprovidedits 2010taxreturn,anunaudited
financialstatement,andthebeneficiary'sIRSFormW-2 for 2010,whichshowedthebeneficiary'swageof
$26,300.
Afterreviewingthepetitioner'sresponse,thedirectorconcludedthatthepetitionerfailedto establishthatthe
beneficiarywouldbeemployedin theUnitedStatesin aqualifyingmanagerialor executivecapacityorthatit
hastheability to paythebeneficiary'sprofferedwage.ThedirectorthereforeissuedadecisiondatedAugust
9,2011denyingthepetitionbasedonthetwogroundsdescribedherein.
Onappeal, , onbehalfof thepetitioner,submitsabriefdisputingthedirector'sfindings.
contendsthat thejob descriptionpreviouslyprovidedwasclearwhenconsideredin the
contextof thepetitioner'sbusiness.Withregardto theissueof abilitytopay, urgestheAAO
to considertheaffiliaterelationshipbetweenthepetitionerandthebeneficiary'sforeignemployerandthe
"alternativecashflows"thatthisaffiliaterelationshipmakesavailableto thepetitionerin orderto ensurethat
all payrollobligationsarebeingmet.
TheAAO findsthatthepetitioner'sassertionsareunpersuasiveandarethereforeinsufficientto overcomethe
director'sdecision.Thediscussionbelowwill providean analysisof therelevantdocumentationandwill
explaintheunderlyingreasoningfor theAAO's decision.
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 entertheUnitedStatesin orderto continueto renderservicesto the
sameemployeror to a subsidiaryor affiliate thereofin a capacitythat is
managerialorexecutive.
Thelanguageof thestatuteis specificin limiting this provisionto only thoseexecutivesandmanagerswho
havepreviouslyworkedfora firm, corporationor otherlegalentity,oranaffiliateor subsidiaryof thatentity,
andwhoarecomingtotheUnitedStatestoworkfor thesameentity,or itsaffiliateor subsidiary.
A UnitedStatesemployermay file a petitionon Form I-140 for classificationof an alienundersection
203(b)(1)(C)of theAct asa multinationalexecutiveor manager.No laborcertificationis requiredfor this
Page4
classification.Theprospectiveemployerin the UnitedStatesmustfurnisha job offer in the form of a
statementwhichindicatesthatthealienis to beemployedin theUnitedStatesin a managerialor executive
capacity.Sucha statementmustclearlydescribethedutiestobeperformedbythealien.
The first issueto be addressedin this proceedingcalls for an analysisof the beneficiary'semployment
capacityin his proposedemploymentwith thepetitioningentity. Specifically,theAAO will examinethe
record to determine whether the petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary
wouldbeemployedin theUnitedStatesin aqualifyingmanagerialor executivecapacity.
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,or adepartmentor subdivisionof theorganization;
(iii) if anotheremployeeor otheremployeesare directly supervised,has the
authorityto hire andfire or recommendthoseas well as otherpersonnel
actions(suchaspromotionandleaveauthorization),or if nootheremployee
is directlysupervised,functionsat a seniorlevel within 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 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.
Page5
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 a clearlydefinedjob description,deemingtheactualdutiesthemselvesasthe
factorsthatdeterminethetruenatureof theemployment.FedinBros.Co, Ltd. v. Sava,724F. Supp.1103,
1108(E.D.N.Y. 1989),affd, 905F.2d41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Additionally,the AAO fmdsthat it is often
appropriatetoconsiderotherrelevantfactors,suchasanentity'sorganizationalhierarchyandoverallstaffmg,
whichallowtheAAO to gaugetheextentto whichthatentitywasor wouldbeableto relievethebeneficiary
fromhavingto focustheprimaryportionof histimeontheperformanceof non-qualifyingoperationaltasks.
After havingreviewedthebeneficiary'sjob description,theAAO findsthatthepetitionerfailedto establish
thatthebeneficiary'stime duringhis proposedemploymentwith thepetitioningentitywouldbeprimarily
allocatedto tasksof aqualifyingnature.
First,despitethepetitioner'sassertionthatthejob descriptionmustbeconsideredin tandemwith thenature
andscopeof thepetitioner'slineof business,a significantportionof thedescriptionofferedby thepetitioner
is overly vagueandmaybe appliedto a varietyof industries,notjust the onein whichthe petitioneris
currentlyengaged.Forinstance,it is unclearwhattheprocessis fordevelopinglogisticalgoalsandstrategies
to integratevendors.Thepetitionerhasnotclarifiedthespecifictasksthebeneficiarywouldhaveto perform
in orderto achievethesebroadobjectives.Thepetitionerwassimilarlyvagueastotheactualdailytasksthat
areinvolvedin developingsystemsfor validatingandauthorizingpricequotesto newcustomers.
Further,in additionto the generalitiesdiscussedabove,theAAO notesthatthepetitioner'sRFEresponse
statementindicatedthatthereis a strongcustomerservicecomponentin thebeneficiary'sproposedposition.
Morespecifically, presidentof thepetitioningentity,statedthatthebeneficiarywouldmeet
with the company'sclients,negotiateon the petitioner'sbehalf,andaddresscustomers'concerns. It is
unclearhow thesesales-andcustomerservice-relatedtasksmeetthe criteriafor tasksthataredeemedas
beingwithina managerialorexecutivecapacity.TheAAO is alsounclearastotheextentof thebeneficiary's
customerservicerolein managingrelationshipswith thepetitioner'scorporateclientsandsuppliers.What
specifictasksarerequiredto managethesebusinessrelationshipsandhow is thebeneficiaryrelievedfrom
having to personally carry out the operational tasks? Additionally, the petitioner failed to establish that
performing follow-up client visits to ensure customer satisfaction, which is another of the beneficiary's
proposedjob duties, falls within the parametersof what is deemedto be within a qualifying managerial or
executivecapacity.
Furthermore,while stressedtheimportanceof thebeneficiary'srolein thepetitioningentity
andclaimedthatthebeneficiary'sdutiesconstituteanessentialfunction,thebeneficiarycannotbedeemeda
functionmanagerif his managerialroleinvolvesbothmanagingthefunctionandperformingtheunderlying
job dutiesrelatedto that function. Althoughthe AAO acknowledgesthat no beneficiaryis requiredto
allocate100%of hisor hertimeto managerial-or executive-leveltasks,thepetitionermustestablishthatthe
non-qualifyingtasksthe beneficiarywould perform are only incidentalto the proposedposition. An
employeewho primarilyperformsthe tasksnecessaryto producea productor to provideservicesis not
consideredto beemployedin a managerialor executivecapacity.Seesections101(a)(44)(A)and(B) of the
Act (requiringthatone"primarily"performtheenumeratedmanagerialor executiveduties);seealsoMatter
of ChurchScientologyInternational,19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm. 1988). The beneficiaryis not
necessarilya functionmanagerby defaultwhenthe beneficiarydoesnot assumethe role of a personnel
managerwhoseprimary concernis to managea subordinatestaff of managerial,supervisory,and/or
Page6
professionalemployees.As previouslynoted,whenmakingtheassertionthat thebeneficiaryof an I-140
petitionis to assumetheroleof a functionmanager,thepetitionassumestheburdenof establishingthatthe
beneficiary'srolewill belimitedto managingtheessentialfunctionandwill not includeperformingthekey
tasksassociatedwith thatfunction. While claimedthatthebeneficiarywoulddelegatetasks
to subordinatesandmeetwith staffandreviewstaffperformance,thusindicatingthatthereis a personnel
managementcomponentto the beneficiary'sproposedposition,theseassertionsare not supportedby the
evidenceof recordas the organizationalchartdoesnot indicatethat thebeneficiaryhasanysubordinates
underhissupervision.
In summary,thepetitionerhasnot providedevidencethatthebeneficiary'srole will be limitedto merely
managinganessentialfunction. As notedabove,a reviewof thepetitioner'sorganizationalchartshowsthat
thebeneficiaryhasnosubordinateemployees.Whilethis factoris nota criticalonefor someoneassuming
therole of managingan essentialfunction,the organizationalchartdoesnot demonstratethat employees
within thepetitioner'sownorganizationalhierarchywouldbeavailableto carryoutthenon-qualifyingtasks
associatedwith the beneficiary'sessentialfunction. Going on recordwithout supportingdocumentary
evidenceis notsufficientfor purposesof meetingtheburdenof proofin theseproceedings.MatterofSoffici,
22I&N Dec.158,165(Comm.1998)(citingMatterof TreasureCraftof California,14I&N Dec.190(Reg.
Comm.1972)).
Despitethe petitioner'sattemptto presentthepetitionerandits affiliate aspart of oneentity,the AAO's
reviewof thebeneficiary'sproposedemploymentis limitedto theU.S.employer'sorganizationalhierarchy,
notthecombinedhierarchiesof thepetitionerandits foreignaffiliate. Whiletheforeignentitymaywantto
achieveitsbusinessgoalsby operatingthroughtheU.S.petitioner,thisbusinessobjectivedoesnotrelievethe
petitionerfromhavingto meetstatutoryandregulatoryrequirements.TheAAO cannotconsidertheforeign
affiliate'sorganizationalhierarchywhenassessingthepetitioner'seligibility. Despitethecommonownership
betweenthesetwoentities,theAAO is requiredto viewthepetitionerasa separateentity,whichis subjectto
applicablestatutoryandregulatoryrequirements.Here,neitherthebeneficiary'sjob descriptionnor the
petitioner'sorganizationalchartconstitutessufficientsupportingevidenceuponwhichtheAAO canbasethe
favorableaffirmativeconclusionthatthebeneficiarywouldbeemployedin theUnitedStatesin a qualifying
managerial or executive capacity. On the basis of this initial adverse conclusion, the AAO finds that the
instantpetition cannotbeapproved.
The AAO will now turn to the secondground for denial-the finding that the petitioner failed to meet the
regulatoryrequirementsdiscussedat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(g)(2),which states,in pertinentpart:
Ability ofprospectiveemployerto pay wage. Any petition filed by or for an employment-
basedimmigrantwhichrequiresanoffer of employmentmustbeaccompaniedby evidence
thattheprospectiveUnitedStatesemployerhastheability to paytheprofferedwage. The
petitionermust demonstratethis ability at the time the priority date is establishedand
continuinguntil thebeneficiaryobtainslawfulpermanentresidence.Evidenceof thisability
shall be in the form of copiesof annualreports,federaltax returns,or auditedfinancial
statements.
Therecordshowsthatthedirectorconsideredthebeneficiary's2010wagesandhasproperlyanalyzedthe
petitioner's2010tax return,concludingthatthe documentaryevidencedoesnot establishthe petitioner's
abilityto paythebeneficiary'sprofferedwage.
Page7
In thesupportingstatementsubmittedonappeal, urgestheAAO to considerthe"alternative
cash flows" that are madeavailableto the petitionerby virtue of its affiliate relationshipwith the
beneficiary'sforeignemployer.Theaboveregulationis specificasto thetypesof documentsthepetitioner
cansubmitin orderto establishits ability to payat thetimeof filing. Theavailabilityof cashflow fromthe
foreignaffiliateis notamongthosefactorsthatcanbeconsideredin determiningthepetitioner'sabilityto pay
thewageoffered. As such,evenif thepetitionerwereto demonstratetheforeignentity'sability to paythe
beneficiary'sprofferedwage,thisevidencewouldbeirrelevantfor purposesof meetingthecriteriaspecified
at 8C.F.R.§ 204.5(g)(2),whichrequiresthepetitionerto establishits ownability to pay. Therecordin the
presentmatterdoesnot establishthat the petitionermeetsthis eligibility provision. On the basisof this
secondadversefinding,theAAO findsthatthepetitiondoesnotwarrantapprovalandmustbedenied.
In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenof provingeligibility for thebenefitsoughtremainsentirelywith the
petitioner.Section291of theAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1361.Thepetitionerhasnotsustainedthatburden.
ORDER: Theappealis dismissed.