dismissed EB-1C Case: Jewelry Wholesale

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U. S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve.N.W.,MS 2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
8 U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: E 2 0 2012 OFFICE:NEBRASKASERVICECENTER
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor AlienWorkerasaMultinationalExecutiveorManagerPursuantto
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 you believethe AAO inappropriatelyappliedthe law in reachingits decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile a motionto reconsideror amotionto reopenin
accordancewith theinstructionson FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion, with a feeof $630. The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha motioncanbe foundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.Do not Gleany motion
directly with the AAO. Pleasebeawarethat8C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto befiledwithin
30 daysof the decisionthat themotion seeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
Ron Rosenberg
ActingChief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.usets,gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The director of the NebraskaServiceCenterrevokedthe previouslyapproved
preferencevisa petition. The matteris now beforethe AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO) on
appeal.Theappealwill bedismissedandthepetitionwill berevoked.
Thepetitioneris a Texascorporationthatis engagedin thewholesaleof gold anddiamondjewelry.
Thepetitionerseeksto employthe beneficiaryasits SalesandMarketingManager.Accordingly,
thepetitionerendeavorsto classifythe beneficiaryasanemployment-basedimmigrantpursuantto
section203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C),as
amultinationalexecutiveor manager.
On September14, 2009,the directorrevokedthe petition concludingthat the petitionerdid not
submitsufficient evidencein rebuttalto the United StatesCitizenshipandImmigrationServices'
("USCIS")Noticeof Intentto Revoke("NOIR") andhasnot overcomethe groundsfor revocation.
TheAAO reviewedtherecordin its entiretybeforeissuingitsdecision.
On December5, 2006,the petitionerfiled the Form I-140 to classifythe beneficiaryas an
employment-basedimmigrant. Thedirectorapprovedthepetition. OnAugust4, 2008,thedirector
notified the petitionerof his intentto revokeapprovalof the immigrantpetition. In the noticeof
intentto revoke,thedirectorstatedthefollowing:
Includedwith the initial petitionwasa letterstatingthebeneficiarywouldbecrucial
to managingthe western region operationsin Henderson,Nevada. Submitted
documentationshowsthat thereis no businessoperationin Henderson.It hasalso
cometo the attentionof USCISthat the beneficiaryis not currentlyemployedand
hasnot beenworkingfor atleastthreeyears.Therefore,thepetitionerhasnot shown
that the beneficiaryis presentlyemployedin a full-time managerialor executive
capacity.
On September24, 2009,the directorrevokedthe ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien Workersincethe
petitionerdid not provideevidenceto overcomethe groundsof revocationlistedin the noticeof
intentto revoke.In thedecision,thedirectornotedthatin thebeneficiary'sinterview,hestatedthat
he hadnot workedfor at leastthreeyears. The directorstatedthat "the alien did not enterthe
United Statesto continueto be employedas a manageror executivefor the sameemployer,
subsidiary,or affiliate andwasnot doingsowhenthepetitionerwasfiled on December5, 2006."
The director also statedthat the "record also showedthat therewas no businessoperationin
Henderson,NV, wherethealienwasintendedto work." Thedirectorfurtherstatedthatthe"record
is insufficientto demonstratethat the beneficiarywill be primarily employedin a managerialor
executivecapacityascontemplatedby regulations."
On October 16, 2009, counselfor the petitioner filed Form I-1290B to appealthe director's
decision.Uponreview,theinformationsubmittedby thepetitioneris not sufficientto overcomethe
director'sconcernsandthepetitionwill berevoked.
On appeal,counselfor the petitionerstatedthat the "beneficiaryafter enteringthe United States,
continuedto workfor theaffiliatedforeignemployer,[theforeignemployer]until thefiling of theI-
140petitionwasfiled on December5, 2006becausehedid not havework authorizationto allow
Page3
him to work in theUnitedStates."Althoughcounselstatesthatthebeneficiaryhasbeenemployed
by the foreigncompanysince2001to thepresent,thepetitionerlacksanyevidenceto corroborate
this claimsuchaspaystubs,a letterfromthe foreigncompanyconfirmingemployment,or copiesof
thebeneficiary'sbankstatementsor taxreturns.Withoutdocumentaryevidence,it is impossibleto
determineif the beneficiaryhasbeen and continuesto be employedby the foreign company.
Without documentaryevidenceto supportthe claim,the assertionsof counselwill not satisfythe
petitioner'sburdenof proof. The unsupportedassertionsof counseldo not constituteevidence.
Matterof Obaigbena,19I&N Dec.533,534(BIA 1988);MatterofLaureano, 19I&N Dec.1(BIA
1983);MatterofRamirez-Sanchez,17I&N Dec.503,506(BIA 1980).
Counselalso arguesthat the threeyearsprior to the beneficiary'sDecember2003nonimmigrant
entry mustbe the point of referencefor the purposeof determiningthe relevantthree-yeartime
period during which the beneficiary'sminimumone year of foreignemploymentmust have
occurred.Counselcontendsthatthebeneficiaryqualifiesbecausehewasemployedasa Salesand
Marketing Managerby the foreign affiliate from 2001 until the I-140 petition was filed on
December6, 2006.
Contraryto the assertionsof counsel,thebeneficiary'sFebruary6, 2005B-2 entryinto theUnited
States,which was not for the purposeof being employedas a manageror executiveat the
petitioningentity, cannotbe the basisfor determiningthe relevantthree-yeartime periodduring
whichthebeneficiary'semploymentabroadwouldbeconsidered.
Thekey questionis whetherthebeneficiary'semploymentin the UnitedStateswasin lawful status
for or in order to render services to the petitioning organization.The AAO concludesthat the
beneficiary'speriodof stayin the United Stateswasnot spentfor or for the purposeof rendering
servicesto the petitioningorganization.To the contrary,the beneficiary'speriod of stay in the
United Stateswas spentas a B-2 visitor and an E-2 derivativespouseand his choiceto seek
employmentwith hispreviousemployerwasmerelyincidentalto his stayin theUnitedStatesasa
family memberof anE-2nonimmigrantvisaholder.
Thebeneficiary'sstayin the UnitedStateswasnot for thepurposeof beingemployedby the same
employeror a subsidiaryor an affiliate thereof Rather,the beneficiaryremainedin the United
Statesin two differentvisa classifications,asa B-2 visitor andE-2 dependentof the primaryvisa
applicant.Therefore,therelevantthree-yeartime periodduringwhichthe beneficiary'soneyearof
qualifyingforeignemploymentshouldhavetakenplaceis from February6, 2002until February6,
2005. Therecorddoesnot providesufficient evidencethat the beneficiarywasemployedabroad
during thattime.
Onappeal,counselstatesthatthebeneficiary"cameto theUnitedStatesonaB-2visitorvisaonor
aboutFebruary6, 2005." OntheFormG-325A,however,thebeneficiarystatedthathehasbeen
living in the United StatessinceApril 2004. It is incumbentuponthe petitionerto resolveany
inconsistenciesin therecordby independentobjectiveevidence.Any attemptto explainor reconcile
suchinconsistencieswill not suffice unlessthe petitionersubmitscompetentobjectiveevidence
pointingto wherethetruthlies. MatterofHo, 19I&N Dec.582,591-92(BIA 1988).
Page4
Thesecondissuethatthe directornotedin the denialdecisionis that the recordshowedthatthere
was no businessoperationin Henderson,Nevada,where the alien intendedto work. On appeal,
counselclaimsthat the petitioner"hassubstantialbusinesscontactsin the area." Counselfurther
statesthat "petitioner demonstratedthat the Beneficiary'slocation will be in Houston,Texas,
however,he will travel frequentlyto Henderson,Nevadabecausea largenumberof tradeshows
take placein that area." The AAO agreesthat the petitioneris not requiredto showan office
locationin Nevadasincebusinessdevelopmentandgrowthcanoriginatefrom the Houston,Texas
office. TheAAO will withdrawthisportionof thedirector'sdecision.
Finally, the directorrevokedthe petition sincethe petitionerfailed to presentsufficientevidence
thatthebeneficiarywouldbeemployedin amanagerialor executivecapacity.
Section203(b)of theAct statesin pertinentpart:
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified
immigrantswho are aliensdescribedin any of the following subparagraphs(A)
through(C):
* * *
(C) CertainMultinational Executivesand Managers.-- An alien is
describedin this subparagraphif the alien, in the 3 yearspreceding
thetimeof thealien'sapplicationfor classificationandadmissioninto
the United Statesunderthis subparagraph,hasbeenemployedfor at
least1yearby a firm or corporationor otherlegalentityor anaffiliate
or subsidiarythereof andwhoseeksto entertheUnitedStatesin order
to continueto renderservicesto thesameemployeror to a subsidiary
or affiliatethereofin a capacitythatismanagerialor executive.
The languageof the statuteis specific in limiting this provision to only thoseexecutivesand
managerswhohavepreviouslyworkedfor a firm, corporationor otherlegalentity,or anaffiliateor
subsidiaryof thatentity,andwho arecomingto theUnitedStatesto work for thesameentity,or its
affiliateor subsidiary.
A United Statesemployermay file a petition on Form I-140 for classificationof an alien under
section203(b)(1)(C)of the Act asa multinationalexecutiveor manager.No laborcertificationis
requiredfor this classification.Theprospectiveemployerin the United Statesmustfurnishajob
offer in theform of a statementwhich indicatesthatthealienisto beemployedin theUnitedStates
in a managerialor executivecapacity. Sucha statementmust clearly describethe dutiesto be
performedby thealien.
Section101(a)(44)(A)of theAct,8U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(44)(A),provides:
Theterm "managerialcapacity"meansan assignmentwithin an organizationin which
theemployeeprimarily--
Page5
(i) managesthe organization,or a department,subdivision,function,or
componentof theorganization;
(ii) supervisesandcontrolsthework of othersupervisory,professional,or
managerialemployees,or managesan essentialfunction within the
organization,or adepartmentor subdivisionof theorganization;
(iii) if anotheremployeeor otheremployeesaredirectly supervised,has
the authorityto hire and fire or recommendthoseas well as other
personnelactions(suchaspromotionand leaveauthorization),or if
no otheremployeeis directly supervised,functionsat a seniorlevel
within the organizationalhierarchyor with respectto the function
managed;and
(iv) exercisesdiscretionoverthe day-to-dayoperationsof the activity or
functionfor whichtheemployeehasauthority. A first-line supervisor
is not consideredto be acting in a managerialcapacitymerely by
virtue of the supervisor'ssupervisoryduties unlessthe employees
supervisedareprofessional.
Section101(a)(44)(B)of theAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(44)(B),provides:
Theterm"executivecapacity"meansanassignmentwithin anorganizationin whichthe
employeeprimarily--
(i) directsthe managementof the organizationor a majorcomponentor
functionof theorganization;
(ii) establishesthe goalsandpoliciesof the organization,component,or
function;
(iii) exerciseswide latitudein discretionarydecision-making;and
(iv) receivesonly general supervisionor direction from higher level
executives,theboardof directors,or stockholdersof theorganization.
In examiningthe executiveor managerialcapacityof the beneficiary,USCISwill look first to the
petitioner'sdescriptionof thejob duties. See8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(5). Publishedcaselaw clearly
supportsthe pivotalrole of a clearlydefinedjob description,astheactualdutiesthemselvesreveal
the true natureof the employment.FedinBros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava,724 F. Supp.I103, 1108
(E.D.N.Y.1989),affd, 905F.2d41 (2d.Cir. 1990);seealso8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(5).Thatbeing
said,however,USCISreviewsthe totality of the record,which includesnot only the beneficiary's
job description,but alsothenatureof thepetitioner'sbusiness,theemploymentandremunerationof
employees,the job descriptionsof the beneficiary'ssubordinates,if any, and any other facts
contributingto a completeunderstandingof abeneficiary'sactualrolewithin agivenentity.
Page6
The job descriptionincludesnon-qualifyingduties such as the beneficiarywill "researchand
presentreportsshowingpotentialcustomersthecostbenefitof enteringinto agreementsto purchase
or leasecompanyproductsor services";"leadnegotiations,coordinatecomplexdecision-making
processes,andovercomeobjectionsto capturenew businessopportunities";"developmarketing
relatedevents,seminars,mailings,andcall campaignsto increasebrandawarenessandpresencein
the local market";and"representthe companyat tradeandindustryfunctionsanddevelopstrong
relationshipswith customers,technical,andservicepersonnel."Developingmarketingstrategyand
negotiatingdealsareboth operationaldutiesthat cannotbe classifiedas managerialor executive
tasks.An employeewho"primarily"performsthetasksnecessaryto produceaproductor providea
serviceis not consideredto be "primarily" employedin a managerialor executivecapacity. See
sections101(a)(44)(A)and(B) of the Act (requiringthat one"primarily" performthe enumerated
managerialor executiveduties);seealsoMatterof ChurchScientologyInternational,19I & N Dec.
593, 604 (Comm. 1988). In the presentmatter,the petitionerhas failed to establishthat the
beneficiarywouldbeemployedabroadin aqualifyingcapacity.
Counsel'sstatementson appealdo not overcomethedirector'sconcerns.Counseldid not provide
sufficientevidenceto overcomethefindingsof thedirector. Theunsupportedstatementsof counsel
on appealor in a motionarenot evidenceandthusarenot entitledto anyevidentiaryweight.See
INSv.Phinpathya,464U.S.183,188-89n.6(1984);Matterof Ramirez-Sanchez,17I&N Dec.503
(BIA 1980).
Thepetitionwill berevokedfor the abovestatedreasons,with eachconsideredasanindependent
andalternativebasisfor denial. In visapetitionproceedings,the burdenof provingeligibility for
the benefitsoughtremainsentirelywith the petitioner. Section291of the Act, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361.
Thepetitionerhasnot sustainedthatburden.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.Thepetitionisrevoked.