dismissed EB-1C Case: Education

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U. S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve.N.w., MS2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: AUG 1 0 2012 OFFICE:TEXASSERVICECENTER FILE:
177
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionforAlienWorkerasaMultinationalExecutiveorManagerPursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOfficein yourcase.All of thedocuments
relatedto this matterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvised
thatanyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If youbelievethelawwasinappropriatelyappliedby usin reachingourdecision,or youhaveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopenin
accordancewith theinstructionson FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,with a feeof $630. The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha requestcanbefoundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.Do not ille any motion
directly with the AAO. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthatanymotionmustbe
filed within 30 daysof the decisionthat themotion seeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
DISCUSSION:Thepreferencevisapetitionwasdeniedby theDirector,TexasServiceCenter.Thematteris
nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)onappeal.Theappealwill bedismissed.
Thepetitioneris aprivatelearninginstitutionthatseeksto employthebeneficiaryasits associatedirectorof
development.Accordingly,the petitionerendeavorsto classifythe beneficiaryas an employment-based
immigrantpursuantto section203(b)(1)(C)of the ImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8U.S.C.
§ 1153(b)(1)(C),asamultinationalexecutiveor manager.
In supportof theFormI-140thepetitionersubmitteda statementdatedFebruary2, 2010,whichcontained
relevantinformationpertainingto the petitioner'seligibility, includingan overviewof the petitioner's
businesspurposeandthe beneficiary'sproposedemployment.The petitioneralsoprovidedsupporting
evidencein the form of payroll documents,promotionalmaterials,andthe petitioner'sauditedfinancial
statementsfor 2007and2008.
Thedirectorreviewedthepetitioner'ssubmissionsanddeterminedthatthepetitiondid not warrantapproval.
Thedirectorthereforeissueda requestfor additionalevidence(RFE)datedApril 27, 2010informingthe
petitionerof variousevidentiarydeficiencies,includingthe lack of detailedinformationpertainingto the
beneficiary'sproposedemployment. In an attemptto obtainthe necessaryinformation,the director
instructedthepetitionerto providea detailedlist delineatingthebeneficiary'sspecificjob dutiesandthe
percentageof timethebeneficiaryplannedto allocateto eachactivityonthelist. Thedirectoralsoaskedfor
thepetitioner'sorganizationalchartalongwith a listingof thebeneficiary'ssubordinateemployees,if any,
andtheirrespectivejob titlesandjob descriptions.
Thepetitionerprovidedaresponse,whichincludedtherequestedjob description,whichwasaccompaniedby
a percentagebreakdownandthepetitioner'sorganizationalchart.
After reviewingtherecord,thedirectorconcludedthat thepetitionerfailedto establishthatthepetitioner
wouldemploythebeneficiaryin a qualifyingmanagerialor executivecapacity.Thedirectorobservedthat
the beneficiarysupervisesonly one employeeand that thejob dutiesthat would be assignedto the
beneficiary in his proposed position would not be those of someone working in a managerial or executive
capacity, The director thereforeissueda decisiondatedNovember 19,2010denyingthepetition.
On appeal,counselsubmitsa brief in which he restatesthe previously provided job descriptionand disputes
thedirector's conclusion.
The AAO finds that counsel'sbrief is not persuasiveandfails to overcomethe director'sdenial. The
discussionbelowwill providean analysisof the relevantdocumentationandwill explainthe underlying
reasoningfortheAAO's decision.
Section203(b)of theAct statesin pertinentpart:
(1) PriorityWorkers.- Visasshallfirst bemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswho
arealiensdescribedin anyof thefollowingsubparagraphs(A) through(C):
* * *
Page3
(C)CertainMultinationalExecutivesandManagers.-- An alienis described
in this subparagraphif thealien,in the 3 yearsprecedingthetime of the
alien'sapplicationfor classificationandadmissioninto the United States
underthissubparagraph,hasbeenemployedfor at least1yearby a firm or
corporationor otherlegalentityoranaffiliateor subsidiarythereofandwho
seeksto entertheUnitedStatesin orderto continueto renderservicestothe
sameemployeror to a subsidiaryor affiliate thereofin a capacitythat is
managerialorexecutive.
Thelanguageof thestatuteis specificin limitingthisprovisionto only thoseexecutivesandmanagerswho
havepreviouslyworkedforafirm,corporationorotherlegalentity,oranaffiliateorsubsidiaryof thatentity,
andwhoarecomingtotheUnitedStatestoworkfor thesameentity,oritsaffiliateor subsidiary.
A UnitedStatesemployermayfile a petitionon FormI-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.Suchastatementmustclearlydescribethedutiesto beperformedbythealien.
The primary issueto be addressedin this proceedingis the beneficiary'semploymentcapacityin his
proposedpositionwith the petitioningU.S. entity. Specifically,the AAO will examinethe recordto
determinewhetherthe petitionersubmittedsufficient evidenceto establishthat it would employthe
beneficiaryin 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,or a departmentor subdivisionof theorganization;
(iii) if anotheremployeeor otheremployeesare directly supervised,hasthe
authorityto hire andfire or recommendthoseas well as otherpersonnel
actions(suchaspromotionandleaveauthorization),orif nootheremployee
is directlysupervised,functionsat a seniorlevelwithin theorganizational
hierarchyorwith respecttothefunctionmanaged;and
(iv) exercisesdiscretionover the day-to-dayoperationsof the activity or
functionfor whichtheemployeehasauthority.A first-linesupervisoris not
consideredto be actingin a managerialcapacitymerelyby virtue of the
Page4
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) directsthe managementof the organizationor a major componentor
functionof 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 theproposedjob duties.See8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(5).TheAAO will thenconsider
thisinformationin lightof thepetitioner'sorganizationalhierarchy,thebeneficiary'spositiontherein,andthe
likelihood that the petitionerwill relievethe beneficiaryfrom having to primarily performthe daily
operationaltasks.
Theevidenceonrecordindicatesthatthebeneficiarywouldallocatehistimeprimarilyto theperformanceof
non-qualifyingtasks.WhiletheAAO acknowledgesthatnobeneficiaryis requiredto allocate100%of his
time to managerial-or executive-leveltasks,the petitionermustestablishthat the non-qualifyingtasksthe
beneficiarywould perform are only incidentalto the proposedposition. An employeewho "primarily"
performsthetasksnecessaryto producea productor to provideservicesis notconsideredto be"primarily"
employed in a managerialor executivecapacity. Seesections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring
that one"primarily"performthe enumeratedmanagerialor executiveduties);seealsoMatter of Church
ScientologyInternational, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm. 1988). The record shows that the beneficiary
would solicit andcultivatebusinessrelationshipswith prospectivedonors,developcultivationstrategies,
plan and attenddonor eventsand attendlocal chapterevents,generateresearchreports,make gift
solicitations,draftproposalsfor gift solicitation,recorddonorinteractions,planvisits for thepetitioner's
senior administrativestaff when they visit prospectivedonors, organizealumni eventswhen targeting
alumni,draft articlesaboutkey donors,presentreportsto theNew York office's financedepartment,request
reportsin orderto preparepresentationsbeforedonors,sendinquiriesto the admissionandfinancialaid
offices,andnetworkwith universitydeansanddepartmentheads.Basedonthepercentagebreakdownthat
accompaniedthelist of thebeneficiary'sproposedjob duties,it appearsthatthebeneficiarywouldspendin
excessof 65%of histimecarryingoutthesenon-qualifyingtasks.
Whilethedirectoralsotooknoteof thebeneficiary'slackof a subordinatestaff,theAAO findsthatthelist
of thebeneficiary'sactualtasksis a moretelling factor,whichrevealsthetruenatureof thebeneficiary's
U.S.employmentandestablishesthatthebeneficiarywouldnotallocatetheprimaryportionof his timeto
Page5
tasksin aqualifyingmanagerialor executivecapacity.SeeFedinBros.Co.,Ltd. v.Sava,724F. Supp.I 103,
1108(E.D.N.Y.1989),aff'd,905F.2d41(2d.Cir. 1990).
In light of the above,the AAO concludesthat the beneficiarywould not be employedin a qualifying
managerialorexecutivecapacity.Therefore,theinstantpetitioncannotbeapproved.
While not previouslyaddressedin the director'sdecision,the AAO finds one additionalground for
ineligibility. Specifically,8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(3)(i)(C)requiresthe petitionerto establishthat it hasa
qualifyingrelationshipwith thebeneficiary'sforeignemployer. To establisha "qualifyingrelationship"
undertheAct andtheregulations,thepetitionermustshowthatthebeneficiary'sforeignemployerandthe
proposedU.S.employerarethe sameemployer(i.e. a U.S.entity with a foreignoffice) or thatthe two
entitiesarerelatedasa "parentandsubsidiary"or as"affiliates." Seegenerally§203(b)(1)(C)of theAct, 8
U.S.C.§ ll53(b)(1)(C); seealso 8 C.F.R.§204.5(j)(2)(providingdefinitionsof theterms"affiliate" and
"subsidiary").
Theregulationat8C.F.R.§204.5(j)(2)statesinpertinentpart:
Affiliate means:
(A) Oneof twosubsidiariesbothof whichareownedandcontrolledby thesameparentor
individual;
(B) Oneof two legalentitiesownedandcontrolledby thesamegroupof individuals,each
individualowningandcontrollingapproximatelythesameshareorproportionof each
entity;
* * *
Subsidiarymeansa firm, corporation,or otherlegalentityof whicha parentowns,directly
or indirectly,morethan half of the entity and controlsthe entity; or owns,directly or
indirectly,half of theentityandcontrolstheentity;or owns,directlyor indirectly,50percent
of a 50-50joint ventureand has equalcontrol and veto power over the entity; or owns,
directlyor indirectly,lessthanhalfof theentity,butin factcontrolstheentity.
Theregulationandcaselaw confirmthatownershipandcontrolarethefactorsthatmustbeexaminedin
determiningwhethera qualifyingrelationshipexistsbetweenUnitedStatesandforeignentitiesfor purposes
of this visa classification. Matter of Church ScientologyInternational, 19I&N Dec. 593; seealso Matter of
SiemensMedicalSystems,Inc., 19I&N Dec.362(BIA 1986);MatterofHughes,18I&N Dec.289(Comm.
1982).In thecontextof thisvisapetition,ownershiprefersto thedirector indirectlegalrightof possession
of theassetsof anentitywith full powerandauthorityto control;controlmeansthedirector indirectlegal
rightandauthorityto directtheestablishment,management,andoperationsof anentity. Matterof Church
ScientologyInternational,19I&N Dec.at595.
Thepetitionerdid not addressthe topic of ownershipin any of the supportingdocuments.The AAO
thereforefinds thatthepetitionerhasfailedto establishthat a qualifyingrelationshipexistsbetweenthe
petitionerandthebeneficiary'semployerabroad.
Page6
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
(9thCir. 2003);seealsoSoltanev. DOJ, 381F.3d143,145(3dCir. 2004)(notingthattheAAO reviews
appealsonadenovobasis).Therefore,basedontheadditionalgroundof ineligibility discussedabove,this
petitioncannotbeapproved.
The petitionwill be deniedfor the abovestatedreasons,with eachconsideredas an independentand
alternativebasisfor denial. In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenof provingeligibility for thebenefit
soughtremainsentirelywith thepetitioner.Section291of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361.Thepetitionerhasnot
sustainedthat burden.
ORDER: Theappealis dismissed.