dismissed EB-1C Case: Franchising And Manufacturing

(b)(6)
DATE: 
JUN 0 4 2013 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Serv ices 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusett s Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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. § 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
1-/:o~ 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, ("the director") denied the preference visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The U.S. petitioner is a company incorporated in New Jersey in November 2004. The petitioner 
states on the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, that its type of business is "franchisor 
. & manufacturer." The petitioner indicates that it employs 22 personnel. It reported a gross annual 
income of $3,595,140 when the petition was filed. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its marketing 
manager. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based 
immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
On December 31, 2012, the director denied the petition determining that the petitioner failed to 
establish that it will employ the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO. On appeal, counsel asserts that the director's basis for denial of the 
petition was erroneous and contends that the evidence of record is sufficient to satisfy the petitioner's 
burden of proof in that the evidence establishes the beneficiary's eligibility for the requested 
classification. 
I. The Law 
To establish eligibility for the employment-based immigrant visa classification, the petitioner must 
meet the criteria outlined in section 203(b) of the Act. 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. 
A United States employer rna y file a petition on Form I -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 fumish a job 
offer in the form of a statement which indicates that the alien is to be employed in the United States 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
in a managerial or executive capacity. Such a statement must clearly describe the duties to be 
performed by the alien. 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. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(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 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(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. 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
II. The Issue on Appeal 
The issue in this proceeding is whether the petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to establish that 
the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner indicated, in a letter appended to the petition, that it is responsible for expanding its 
parent company's products into new markets and gaining new franchise accounts in the United States. 
The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as its marketing manager and provided an outline of 
his duties as follows: 
• Establish company's sales and marketing goals. 
• Evaluate sales reports, identify new sales territories, potential markets, target 
demographics and opportunities for growth. 
• Steer marketing research and implement marketing projects that will determine 
company's marketing and sales initiatives and vision. 
• Negotiate and finalize franchise accounts and agreements on behalf of [the 
petitioner and the foreign entity] in the U.S. market. 
• Establish and develop strategic relationships and partnerships with vendors. 
• Set marketing and sales budget needed and allocate resources that are viable within 
the overall budget. 
• Oversee all operational activities of the sales and marketing department. 
• Hire and terminate employees for the marketing department. 
The petitioner also included its organizational chart depicting the beneficiary as reporting to a 
director and directly over three account managing clerks and two production associates. 
Upon review of the totality of the record, the director requested, among other evidence, a definitive, 
detailed statement describing the beneficiary's proposed job duties for the U.S. entity including the 
number of employees who report to the beneficiary and a brief 
description of their job titles, duties 
and education level. 
In response, the petitioner listed the beneficiary's proposed job duties and allocated the beneficiary's 
time to the job duties as follows: 
• Direct to establish company's sales and marketing goals. (10 percent) 
• Direct and Evaluate sales reports; identify new sales territories, potential markets, 
target demographics and opportunities for growth. (10 percent) 
• Direct marketing research and implement marketing projects that will determine 
company's marketing and sales initiatives and vision. (10 percent) 
• Direct to negotiate and finalize franchise accounts and agreements on behalf of 
[the petitioner and the foreign entity] in the U.S. market. (20 percent) 
• Establish and develop strategic relationships and partnerships with vendors. (10 
percent) 
• Set marketing and sales budget needed and allocate resources that are viable within 
the overall budget. (5 percent) 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
• Manage/Oversee all operational activities of the sales and marketing department. 
(25 percent) 
• Hire and terminate employees for the marketing department. (10 percent) 
The petitioner also indicated that five employees report directly to the beneficiary. The petitioner 
identified four of the subordinate positions as account assistant managers and one as a store assistant 
manager. The petitioner listed the duties of the subordinate employees as management of a particular 
region or of a store. 
The director denied the petition, determining that the record was insufficient to establish that the 
beneficiary's duties are primarily managerial or executive. 
On the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, the petitioner asserts that the description of the 
beneficiary's duties is detailed enough that any reasonable person could understand what the job 
entails and that it is a managerial function. The petitioner also attaches a more detailed description 
for the beneficiary's position. 
III. Analysis 
Upon review of the petition and evidence, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary will 
be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. In examining the executive or 
managerial capacity of the beneficiary, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
will look first to the petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.50)(5). Published 
case law clearly supports the pivotal role of a clearly defined job description, as the actual duties 
themselves reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 
1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); see also 8 C.P.R. § 204.50)(5). That 
being said, however, users reviews the totality of the record, which includes not only the 
beneficiary's job description, but also takes into account the nature of the petitioner's business, the 
employment and remuneration of employees, as well as the job descriptions of the beneficiary's 
subordinates, if any, and any other facts contributing to a complete understanding of a beneficiary's 
actual role within a given entity . 
As the director observed, the definitions of executive and managerial capacity have two parts. First, 
the petitioner must show that the beneficiary performs the high-level responsibilities that are specified 
in the definitions. Second, the petitioner must prove that the beneficiary primarily performs these 
specified responsibilities and does not spend a majority of his or her time on day-to-day functions. 
Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (Table), 1991 WL 144470 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991). The 
director specifically noted that reciting the beneficiary's vague job responsibilities or broadly-cast 
business objectives is not sufficient; that the regulations require a detailed description of the 
beneficiary's daily job duties. The director cited Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, supra, noting that the 
actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. 
In this matter, although specifically requested by the director, the petitioner did not provide the 
requested definitive, detailed statement describing the beneficiary's duties.. Rather, the petitioner 
provided the same outline of the beneficiary's duties only adding the word "direct" or manage" to the 
beginning of several of the brief bulleted points in the original description. Moreover, the petitioner 
(b)(6)
Page6 
failed to provide even a brief description of the job duties of the beneficiary's subordinate employees. 
Stating that the beneficiary's subordinates are involved in "Management" is not a job description that 
conveys the actual day-to-day duties associated with the position. The petitioner's failure to submit 
this information cannot be excused. The failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a 
material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). The 
director appropriate! y denied the petition. 
Where, as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given 
an opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first 
time on appeal. See Matter of Soriano , 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 
19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). In this matter, the petitioner's addition of duties to the beneficiary's 
position description will not be reviewed. If the petitioner had wanted the submitted evidence to be 
considered, it should have submitted the documents in response to the director's request for evidence. 
!d. Under the circumstances, the AAO need not and does not consider the sufficiency of the evidence 
submitted on appeal. 
Moreover, the record on appeal still does not include evidence of the actual duties of the beneficiary' s 
subordinates, nor does it address the discrepancies in the position titles of those claimed subordinates. 
As noted by the director, the petitioner initially indicated that the beneficiary supervises two 
production assistants and three "account managing clerks," but in response to the director's request for 
evidence (RFE) stated that he supervises four "account assistant managers" and one "store assistant 
manager." The petitioner failed to provide any explanation for these changes. Further, the AAO notes 
that two of the subordinates identified in response to the request for evidence do not appear on the 
petitioner's organizational chart, while the two production assistants identified on the organizational 
chart as subordinate to the beneficiary were not included in the list of subordinates provided in 
response to the RFE. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by 
independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice 
unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 
I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
For the foregoing reasons, the AAO will affirm the director's decision and dismiss the appeal. 
IV. Conclusion 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reason . 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. § 1361. Here the petitioner has not met that burden. 
Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.