dismissed EB-1C Case: Finance

US. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
identifying data deleted to 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
prevent clearly unwarranted U.S. Citizenship 
invasio~ of personal privacy 
 and Immigration 
FILE: OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: NL 28 2009 
LIN 08 054 51598 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1 153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider, as required by 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
wn F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center. 
The petitioner subsequently filed a motion seeking to reopen the matter. Although the director 
granted the petitioner's motion, the denial was ultimately affirmed in a new decision. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a financial management and advising corporation that seeks to employ the 
beneficiary as its director of derivative sales and execution. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to 
classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1 153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or 
manager. 
The director denied the petition based on two independent grounds of ineligibility: 1) the petitioner 
failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity; and 2) the petitioner failed to establish that it would employ the beneficiary in the United 
States in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, counsel disputes the director's conclusions and submits a brief in support of his 
assertions, which will be addressed below. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants 
who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(C) Certain Multinational Executives and Managers. -- An alien is 
described in this subparagraph if the alien, in the 3 years preceding the 
time of the alien's application for classification and admission into the 
United States under this subparagraph, has been employed for at least 
1 year by a firm or corporation or other legal entity or an affiliate or 
subsidiary thereof and who seeks to enter the United States in order to 
continue to render services to the same employer or to a subsidiary or 
affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial or executive. 
The language of the statute is specific in limiting this provision to only those executives and 
managers who have previously worked for a firm, corporation or other legal entity, or an affiliate or 
subsidiary of that entity, and who are coming to the United States to work for the same entity, or its 
affiliate or subsidiary. 
A United States employer may file a petition on Form 1-140 for classification of an alien under 
section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. No labor certification is 
required for this classification. The prospective employer in the United States must furnish a job 
offer in the form of a statement which indicates that the alien is to be employed in the United States 
in a managerial or executive capacity. Such a statement must clearly describe the duties to be 
performed by the alien. 
Page 3 
The two primary issues in this proceeding call for an analysis of the beneficiary's job duties. 
Specifically, the AAO will examine the record to determine whether the beneficiary was employed 
abroad and whether he would be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or 
executive capacity. 
Section 10 1 (a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 10 1 (a)(44)(A), provides: 
The term "managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily-- 
(i) 
 manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or 
component of the organization; 
(ii) 
 supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees, or manages an essential function within the 
organization, or a department or subdivision of the organization; 
(iii) 
 if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has 
the authority to hire and fire or recommend those as well as other 
personnel actions (such as promotion and leave authorization), or if no 
other employee is directly supervised, functions at a senior level 
within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function 
managed; and 
(iv) 
 exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or 
function for which the employee has authority. A first-line supervisor 
is not considered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by 
virtue of the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees 
supervised are professional. 
Section 10 1 (a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U. S.C. fj 1 10 1 (a)(44)(B), provides: 
The term "executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily-- 
(i) 
 directs the management of the organization or a major component or 
function of the organization; 
(ii) 
 establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or 
function; 
(iii) 
 exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
(iv) 
 receives only general supervision or direction from higher level 
executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
In support of the Form 1-140, the petitioner submitted a letter dated October 18, 2007, which 
includes the following description of the beneficiary's proposed position in the United States: 
[The beneficiary] is charged with sole responsibility for the management of business 
processes and all equity execution and sales of European markets. He applies his 
extensive management background and in-depth knowledge of ML&Co. trading 
strategies to service large corporate clients, thereby performing a critical function in 
the firm. Specifically, he oversees the Chicago global equity derivative desk during 
European hours, focusing on products such as European stock index futures, single 
stock futures and options . . . . He works closely with members covering clients in 
fixed income and commodities, as well as those of the FF&O and EF&O staff in 
London in order to develop the best possible trading strategies for his clients. 
[The beneficiary] actively markets complex financial products among peers internally 
and directly to [the petitioner's] clients internationally. He is solely responsible for 
developing client relationships and interacting with current and prospective clients in 
an effort to increase revenue for [the petitioner]. In addition, [the beneficiary] 
designs and implements sound business practices based on [the petitioner's] global 
policies and procedures. He serves as the management liaison with clients and 
prospects, establishing and developing relationships and promoting his product line. 
[He] operates with a high level of independent management authority in managing a 
critical function for the firm, with an emphasis on managing equity derivative sales 
for a critical business unit. 
The petitioner also provided the following description of the beneficiary's employment abroad: 
[The beneficiary] applied his extensive management background and in-depth 
knowledge of ML&Co. trading strategies to manage the marketing of equity 
derivative products to institutional clients, a highly critical function in the firm. He 
managed the sales activities related to his product line, including index futures and 
options, listed stock futures and options . . . . [He] developed appropriate marketing 
strategies and determined means of achieving his management goals, focusing on 
short- and long-term client development. In addition, he designed and implemented 
sound business practices, based on [the petitioner's] global policies and procedures. 
[The beneficiary] further served as the management liaison with clients and prospects 
with regard to his product line, establishing and developing relationships with current 
and prospective clients in an effort to increase revenue for [the petitioner]. [He] 
oversaw all day-to-day activities associated with his business unit. 
[The beneficiary] developed and managed business relationships with assigned 
institutional accounts, developing knowledge of client needs and requirements as well 
as coordinating the firm's effort to service client organizations. He worked closely 
with clients' investment and research personnel, presenting research services and 
advising clients on investment opportunities. In addition, [he] handled complex client 
requirements and coordinated with trading and execution services professionals to 
deliver on client requests. [He] operated with high level of independent management 
authority to manage a critical function for the firm, with an emphasis on managing 
equity derivative sales for a critical function for the firm, with an emphasis on 
managing equity derivative sales for a critical business unit. 
On April 16, 2008, the director issued a request for additional evidence (RFE), instructing the 
petitioner to provide a more detailed description of the beneficiary's job duties, both abroad and in 
his proposed position with the U.S. entity. The petitioner was expressly asked to list the 
beneficiary's daily tasks and to indicate the percentage of time that was spent and would be spent 
performing each task. 
In response, the petitioner provided a letter dated May 8, 2008, which included the following 
supplemental description of the beneficiary's employment abroad: 
[The beneficiary] managed a critical function for Merrill Lynch London by managing 
important sales and marketing activities for institutional clients. . . . As a [dlirector 
on a sales team of only five (5) members, [the beneficiary] developed and managed 
client relationships with exclusively institutional clients. While another team 
serviced hedge fund accounts, [the beneficiary] and [his] team were responsible for 
solely managing their own institutional client relationships. He spent approximately 
25% of [his] time establishing and developing relationships with current and 
prospective clients in an effort to increase revenue for Merrill Lynch. Moreover, [the 
beneficiary] was responsible for developing strategies for maintaining existing and 
fostering new client relationships. He spent approximately 25% of [his] time 
developing the knowledge of client needs and requirements, as well as coordinating 
the firms effort to service client organizations. 
Furthermore, [the beneficiary] relied on research conducted by the derivative research 
team of approximately four (4) members to develop client trading strategies. The 
execution team of approximately five (5) members implemented business transactions 
as directed by the sales team. [The beneficiary] managed the sales activities related 
to his product line, including index futures and options . . . . He spent approximately 
50% of [his] time developing appropriate marketing strategies and determining means 
of achieving his management goals, focusing on short- and long-terms client 
development. He worked closely with clients' investment and research personnel, 
presenting research services and advising clients on investment opportunities. [The 
beneficiary] was the sole individual responsible for servicing his institutional clients 
by providing advice, guidance and strategy recommendations. 
In response to the director's request for a list of the beneficiary's proposed tasks with the U.S. entity, 
the petitioner provided the following job description: 
As a [dlirector, [the beneficiary] manages several essential functions for our 
company. As the one and only Director for European Products out of twenty (20) 
team members, [the beneficiary] is charged with the sole responsibility for the 
management of business processes and all equity execution and sales of European 
markets. . . . [The beneficiary] is the individual responsible for enhancing the sale of 
European products to U[.]S[.] clients . . . . He spends approximately 50% of [his] 
time working closely with members of the execution desk covering clients in equities, 
fixed income and commodities and with staff in London to develop the best possible 
trading strategies for his clients. . . . Moreover, [the beneficiary] actively markets 
complex financial products among peers internally and directly to clients 
internationally. He spends approximately 50% of [his] time promoting his product 
line. [He] is solely responsible for developing client relationships and interacting 
with current and prospective clients in an effort to increase revenue for ML&Co. 
On June 6, 2008, the director issued a decision denying the petitioner's Form 1-140 based on the 
petitioner's failure to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad or that he would be 
employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. The director noted 
that the petitioner did not provide position descriptions for the beneficiary's superiors and 
subordinates and failed to establish that the beneficiary has been and would be overseeing a 
professional, managerial, or supervisory staff who would relieve him from having to primarily 
perform non-qualifying tasks. The director further rejected the claim that the beneficiary has been 
and would be a function manager, noting that the beneficiary's tasks are primarily sales-related, 
despite the complex nature of the services being sold. 
After granting the petitioner's motion to reopen, resulting in a second decision, which was dated July 
25, 2008, the director affirmed the grounds cited in the original decision. The director further noted 
the petitioner's failure to provide organizational charts depicting the beneficiary's position with 
respect to others within the U.S. and foreign entities. 
On appeal, counsel disputes the director's denial, asserting that the beneficiary's responsibilities "are 
far broader than those of a general sales agent" and further claiming that managing sales strategies 
and business processes is an essential function and a primary responsibility of the beneficiary. 
Counsel's argument, however, is not persuasive, as it fails to give proper consideration to the fact 
that the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's daily job duties must demonstrate that the 
beneficiary manages the function rather than performs the duties related to the function. While the 
petitioner failed to provide a detailed job description delineating the beneficiary's specific job duties 
abroad and in the United States as previously requested, the record contains sufficient information to 
allow the AAO to gauge the extent to which the beneficiary has been and would be involved in the 
performance of non-qualifying tasks. Thus, contrary to counsel's apparent misconception, the mere 
fact that the beneficiary's tasks are complex and result in large revenues being generated does not 
mean that the duties performed by the beneficiary should be deemed as qualifying. 
Counsel also places significant emphasis on the fact that the beneficiary's skills are unique and that 
the clients with whom the beneficiary deals on a daily basis are corporations rather than individuals. 
In fact, counsel's very argument suggests that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) should simply overlook the fact the beneficiary has been and would continue to be involved 
in marketing and ultimately selling his employer's investment products. Counsel disputes this type 
of an interpretation of the beneficiary's job duties, differentiating between O*Netls job description 
for a financial sales agent, who is responsible for buying and selling securities as well as providing 
financial services to customers of investment and trading firms, and O*Net's job description for a 
sales manager, who is responsible for coordinating sales distribution, analyzing sales statistics, 
establishing goals, and monitoring customer preferences. However, counsel's argument is inherently 
flawed. First, USCIS cannot conclude, simply on the basis of a sales manager's position title and the 
brief job description offered by O*Net, that everyone carrying the same or similar position title 
would qualify as a managerial capacity employee. The first step in making such a determination is 
to closely examine the detailed description of the beneficiary's job duties, which the petitioner is 
required to submit. See 8 C.F.R. 4 204.56)(5). 
Here, as previously noted, the petitioner failed to comply with the director's express instructions for 
a list of the specific tasks the beneficiary performed and would perform during his foreign and 
proposed employment, respectively. Instead, the petitioner provided broad job descriptions, 
focusing heavily on the beneficiary's involvement in first devising the marketing tools with which to 
target new and existing corporate clients and then selling the company's services to the targeted 
clientele. However, as properly pointed out by the director, an employee who primarily performs the 
tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not considered to be employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity. See sections 10 1 (a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that one 
"primarily" perform the enumerated managerial or executive duties); see also Matter of Church 
Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm. 1988). Furthermore, the petitioner made 
no mention that the beneficiary has or would in the future coordinate sales distribution or analyze 
sales statistics, both of which were cited as some of the responsibilities of a sales manager. This 
leads to the second flaw in counsel's reference to O*Net; namely, the job descriptions that the 
petitioner has provided are not sufficient to establish that the beneficiary's job duties abroad and in 
the United States are similar to those of the sales manager as described in O*Net. 
Next, counsel's assertion that corporate position titles, the beneficiary's in particular, are indicative of 
managerial capacity employees within the context of large financial services organizations is also 
inherently flawed, as placing any emphasis on position titles detracts focus away from more relevant 
factors, including the beneficiary's actual daily job duties and whether the beneficiary is at a senior 
level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed. See section 
101(a)(44)(A)(iii) of the Act. That being said, counsel is also incorrect in asserting that an 
organizational chart is ineffective in conveying the beneficiary's employment capacity due to the 
beneficiary's lack of subordinate employees. As the relevant section of the Act clearly indicates, 
where the beneficiary does not supervise any subordinate personnel, the petitioner must be able to 
illustrate or somehow convey the beneficiary's level of seniority with respect to the function 
managed. The director's request for the foreign and U.S. entities' organizational charts was clearly 
intended so that the director could conduct the necessary analysis. However, the organizational 
charts submitted in the present matter were overly general and failed to depict the beneficiary as 
someone situated at a senior level of a given function. While the AAO does not dispute the complex 
nature of the beneficiary's job duties, nor his effort and ability to market and sell the petitioner's 
financial services to its corporate clientele, the record does not establish that the beneficiary's job 
duties abroad and with the U.S. entity are primarily within a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity. Therefore, on the basis of this conclusion, the AAO cannot approve the instant petition. 
When the AAO denies a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a 
challenge only if it is shown that the AAO abused its discretion with respect to all of the AAO's 
Page 8 
enumerated grounds. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 
(E.D. Cal. 2001), afd 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the 
benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The 
petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.