dismissed EB-1C Case: Retail

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U. S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
identifyingdatadeletedto ^d*i"'8''*'''°^PP°"'"°"i©©(^^°)20MassachusettsAve, N.W.,MS2090
preventclearlyunwarranted Washington,DC20529-2090
invasionof personalprivacy U.S.Citizenship
PUBLICCOPY 8'"li°"Services
DATE: AUG 1 5 2012 OFFICE:NEBRASKASERVICECENTER FILE
SRC
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
thatanyfurtherinquirythatyou mighthaveconcerningyour casemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believethe AAO inappropriatelyappliedthe law in reachingits decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopenin
accordancewith theinstructionson FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,with a feeof $630. The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha motioncanbe found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion
directly with the AAO. Pleasebeawarethat8C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto befiledwithin
30 daysof the decisionthat themotion seeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscus.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: Thepreferencevisapetitionwasdeniedby theDirector,NebraskaServiceCenter.
Thematteris nowbeforethe AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO) on appeal.Theappealwill be
dismissed.
The petitioneris a Florida companythat is a "groceryretail store,"which seeksto employthe
beneficiaryasits President.Accordingly,thepetitionerendeavorsto classifythebeneficiaryasan
employment-basedimmigrantpursuantto section203(b)(1)(C)of the ImmigrationandNationality
Act (theAct), 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C),asamultinationalexecutiveor manager.
On June30, 2010,thedirectordeniedthepetitionconcludingthatthe petitionerfailedto establish
that the beneficiary'sproposedemploymentwith the U.S. entity would be within a qualifying
managerialor executivecapacity.
Thepetitionersubsequentlyfiled an appeal. Thedirectordeclinedto treatthe appealasa motion
andforwardedtheappealto theAAO for review.
Section203(b)of theAct statesin pertinentpait:
(1) Priority Workers.-- Visas shall first be madeavailable. . . to qualified
immigrantswho arealiensdescribedin anyof the following subparagraphs(A)
through(C):
* * *
(C) CertainMultinationalExecutivesandManagers.-- An alienis
describedin this subparagraphif the alien, in the 3 years
precedingthe time of the alien'sapplicationfor classification
andadmissioninto theUnitedStatesunderthis subparagraph,
hasbeenemployedfor at least1yearby a firm or corporation
or otherlegal entity or an affiliate or subsidiarythereofand
who seeksto enterthe United Statesin orderto continueto
renderservicesto the sameemployeror to a subsidiaryor
affiliatethereofin acapacitythatis managerialor executive.
The languageof the statuteis specific in limiting this provision to only thoseexecutivesand
managerswhohavepreviouslyworkedfor the firm, corporationor otherlegalentity,or anaffiliate
or subsidiaryof that entity,andarecomingto theUnitedStatesto work for the sameentity,or its
affiliateor subsidiary.
A United Statesemployermay file a petition on FormI-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 the formof a statementthatindicatesthatthealienisto beemployedin theUnitedStatesin
a managerialor executivecapacity. Sucha statementmust clearly describethe duties to be
performedby thealien. See8 C.F.R.§204.5(j)(5).
Page3
Theissuein thisproceedingis whetherthepetitionersubmittedsufficientevidenceto establishthat
it would employ the beneficiary in the United States in a qualifying managerialor executive
capacity.
Section101(a)(44)(A)of theAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(44)(A),provides:
Theterm "managerialcapacity"meansan assignmentwithin an organizationin which
theemployeeprimarily--
(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(suchaspromotionandleaveauthorization),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-linesupervisor
is not consideredto be acting in a managerialcapacitymerelyby
virtue of the supervisor'ssupervisoryduties unlessthe employees
supervisedareprofessional.
Section101(a)(44)(B)of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(44)(B),provides:
Theterm "executivecapacity"meansan assignmentwithin anorganizationin which the
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 generalsupervisionor 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
supportsthepivotalroleof a clearlydefinedjob description,astheactualdutiesthemselvesreveal
Page4
the true natureof the employment.Fedin.Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava,724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108
(E.D.N.Y. 1989),aff d, 905 F.2d41 (2d. Cir. 1990);seealso 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(5). Thatbeing
said,however,USCISreviewsthe totality of the record,which includesnot only thebeneficiary's
job description,but alsotakesinto accountthe natureof thepetitioner'sbusiness,the employment
andremunerationof employees,aswell asthejob descriptionsof thebeneficiary'ssubordinates,if
any, and any other factscontributingto a completeunderstandingof a beneficiary'sactualrole
within a given entity.
In the June24, 2009supportletter,the petitionerexplainedthat the petitioneris "engagedin the
businessof retail grocerystoreto the public." The petitioneralso explainedthe dutiesof the
beneficiaryin thepositionof Presidentasfollows:
He setsup the company'sgoalsandpolicies,conferswith companyofficialsto plan
businessobjectivesto developorganizationalpoliciesto coordinatefunctionsand
operationsbetweendivisions and departments,and establishresponsibilitiesand
proceduresfor attaining objectives. He receivesactivity reports and financial
statementsto determineprogressand status in attaining objectivesand revise
objectivesandplansin accordancewith currentconditionsanddirectandcoordinate
formulation of financial programsto provide funding for new or continuing
operationsto maximizereturnson investments,andto increaseproductivity. [The
beneficiary] supervises all six (6) subordinates,including one (1) Vice
President/GeneralManager,one(1) OperationsManager,one(1) InventoryManager
andtheir subordinates.He is in chargewith authorityof hiring, firing andpromoting
thosesubordinateshesupervises.
In responseto thedirector'srequestfor evidence,thepetitionerprovidedabreakdownof percentage
spentonthedutiesto beperformedby thebeneficiary.
An analysisof therecorddoesnot leadto anaffirmativeconclusionthatthebeneficiarywouldbe
employedin theUnitedStatesin a qualifyingmanagerialor executivecapacity.With regardto the
proposedposition,thepetitionerprovideda list of job dutiesperformedby the beneficiarywith a
percentagebreakdownwhichincludedbroadlystatedjob responsibilities.Dueto theoverlygeneral
information includedin the percentagebreakdown,the AAO is unableto gain a meaningful
understandingof howmuchtimethebeneficiaryspentperformingqualifyingtasksversusthosethat
wouldbedeemednon-qualifying.
The job dutiesthat will makeup 30% of the beneficiary'stime include"directs,developsand
coordinatesdomesticandinternationalmarketingdevelopmentandactivities;setsupthecompany's
goalsandpoliciesandmanageall financialaspectsof business." Thepetitioner'sorganizational
chartdid not identifyanyemployeeswho actuallyassistedin the salesandmarketingpoliciessuch
asmarketresearch,marketing,andpromotionprograms.Thus,thebeneficiarymaybe the oneto
carryout theseoperationalfunctions,which areoutsidetheparametersof whatis deemedasbeing
within amanagerialor executivecapacity.
Thepetitionerindicatedthatanother25%of thebeneficiary'stimewill include"exercisesauthority
in regardto hiring, firing, training,delegationof assignmentsaccordingto capabilities,preferences
Page5
and goals, discipline, promotions, and remuneration;directs and coordinatesactivities of
departmentto obtainoptimumefficiencyandeconomyof operationsandmaximizeprofits. It is
unclearwhat specific tasks actually fall within this broad category. Merely using the term
"exercisedauthority"to describethe beneficiary'sfunctiondoesnot establishthat the tasksthe
beneficiaryperformedwereof a qualifying nature. The beneficiary'spositiondescriptionis too
generaland broadto establishthat mostof his time is spenton dutiesthat are managerialor
executivein nature. Recitingthe beneficiary'svaguejob responsibilitiesor broadly-castbusiness
objectivesis not sufficient;the regulationsrequirea detaileddescriptionof the beneficiary'sdaily
job duties. The petitionerhas failed to provide any detail or explanationof the beneficiary's
activitiesin thecourseof hisdaily routine. Theactualdutiesthemselveswill revealthetruenature
of the employment.FedinBros.Co.,Ltd. v. Sava,724F. Supp.1103,1108(E.D.N.Y. 1989),affd,
905F.2d41(2d.Cir. 1990).
The petitionerindicatedthat for another20% of his time, the beneficiary"reviewsthe financial
performanceof the company,controls the expensesaccordingto accountingsystemand cost
managementregulations,"and"conferswith the V.P./G.M.on the financialresults." Again, the
petitionerdid notprovidedetailedinformationof whatis entailedin performingthistask. Goingon
record without supportingdocumentaryevidenceis not sufficient for purposesof meetingthe
burdenof proof in theseproceedings.Matter of Soffici, 22 l&N Dec. 158, 165(Comm.1998)
(citing Matter of TreasureCraft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). As
discussedbelow,theevidencedoesnot indicatethatthe Vice President/GeneralManagerlistedon
theorganizationalchartis actuallyemployedby thepetitionersincethepetitionerdid not preparea
FormW-2 for thatindividualin 2008.
The petitioneralsoindicatedthat for another20% of his time the beneficiary"handlesirregular
problemsthat mayoccur from businessoperationsby exercisingdiscretionaryauthorityover the
day-to-dayoperations."Thepetitionerfailedto explainwhatconstitutes"irregularproblems,"and
did not indicatewhetherthis is a managerialor executivetask. Recitingthebeneficiary'svaguejob
responsibilitiesor broadly-castbusinessobjectivesis not sufficient; the regulationsrequire a
detaileddescriptionof the beneficiary'sdaily job duties. Thepetitionerhasfailedto provideany
detail or explanationof the beneficiary'sactivitiesin the courseof his daily routine. The actual
dutiesthemselveswill revealthetruenatureof theemployment.FedinBros.Co Ltd.v.Sava,724
F. Supp.1103,1108(E.D.N.Y.1989),affd, 905F.2d41(2d.Cir. 1990).
Thejob descriptionsubmittedby thepetitionerprovideslittle insightintothetruenatureof thetasks
thebeneficiarywill perform. While the petitionerhasprovideda breakdownof thepercentageof
time the beneficiarywill spendon variousduties,the petitionerhasnot articulatedwhethereach
duty is managerialor executivein nature.
Thepetitioneralsosubmittedanorganizationalchartthatindicatesthebeneficiaryaspresidentwho
supervisestheVice President/GeneralManager,whoin turn supervisesthe inventorymanagerwho
supervisesthestockingclerk,andtheoperationsmanagerwho supervisesthecashier/clerkandthe
accountant. In reviewingthe FormsW-2 for 2008andthe organizationalchart,the individuals
employedwere the president,the operationsmanager,the stock clerk and the accountant. The
petitioner did not submit documentationevidencing that it actually employed the vice
president/generalmanager,the inventorymanagerandthe cashieras listed on the organizational
Page6
chart. It is incumbentupon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistenciesin the record by
independentobjectiveevidence.Any attemptto explainor reconcilesuchinconsistencieswill not
sufficeunlessthepetitionersubmitscompetentobjectiveevidencepointingto wherethetruth lies.
Matter of Ho, 19I&N Dec.582, 591-92(BIA 1988). Althoughthe directorrequesteda copyof
wageandtax statementsfor 2009,the petitionerdid not providethis documentation.Failureto
submitrequestedevidencethatprecludesa materialline of inquiry shallbegroundsfor denyingthe
petition,8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(14).
In responseto the director's requestfor evidence,the petitioner submittedForm 1120, U.S.
CorporationIncomeTax Return,for 2008thatindicateda salarywaspaidto thebeneficiaryin the
amountof $35,040.00andthepetitionerpaid$58,350.00in salariesandwages.Thepetitioneralso
submittedForm1120,U.S. CorporationIncomeTax Return,for 2009thatindicatesthebeneficiary
receiveda salary of $50,000.00and the petitioner paid $113,850.00in salariesand wages.
Although the petitionerappearedto pay moresalariesandwagesin 2009,the petitionerdid not
provideFormsW-2 or the Forms941, QuarterlyWageTax Returns,to indicatethe individuals
actuallyemployedby thepetitioner. Goingon recordwithoutsupportingdocumentaryevidenceis
not sufficientfor purposesof meetingtheburdenof proof in theseproceedings.Matter of Soffici,
22 I&N Dec. 158,165(Comm'r 1998)(citing Matter of TreasureCraft of California, 14I&N Dec.
190(Reg.Comm'r1972)).
In responseto thedirector'srequestfor evidence,thepetitionerstatedthattheoperatinghoursof the
grocerystoreare9:30a.m.to 8:00p.m. Althoughthepetitionerdid not indicatehowmanydaysa
weekthestoreisopen,theAAO will assumethatthegrocerystore,giventhenatureof thebusiness,
is opendaily or at leastsix daysa week. Accordingto the FormsW-2 for 2008,the petitioner
employedthepresident,the operationsmanager,the stockingclerk andthe accountant.Without a
cashier/clerk,it is not clearwho will operatethe cashregisterfor a grocerystorethatis openfrom
9:30a.m.to 8:00p.m. Thepetitionerhasnot accountedfor who is responsiblefor operatingthe
storeduringthemanyoperatinghourswhenneitherof thebeneficiary'ssubordinatesareavailable.
The petitionerhasnot explainedhow the threeemployeesotherthanthe beneficiaryare ableto
performmostor all of theday-to-dayfunctionsof orderingmerchandiseandsupplies,arrangingand
stocking merchandisedisplays, cleaning the store, processing customer purchasesof goods,
reconcilingdaily cashregisterreceipts,andmanyotherroutinedutiesassociatedwith operatingthe
business.Giventheabsenceof employeeswhowouldperformthenon-managerialor non-executive
operationsof the company,it is reasonableto concludethatthebeneficiarywouldneedto spenda
significantportionof histime directlyprovidingtheservicesof thecompanyor directlysupervising
employeesperformingcashierduties.SeeMatterofSoffici, 22I&N Dec.at 165.
Beyondthe requireddescriptionof thejob duties,USCISreviewsthe totality of the recordwhen
examiningthe claimedmanagerialor executivecapacityof a beneficiary,includingthepetitioner's
organizationalstructure,thedutiesof thebeneficiary'ssubordinateemployees,thepresenceof other
employeesto relieve the beneficiary from performing operationalduties, the nature of the
petitioner'sbusiness,andany other factorsthat will contributeto a completeunderstandingof a
beneficiary'sactualduties and role in a business. As discussedabove,the petitionerhas not
identifiedsufficientemployeeswithin the petitioner'sorganization,subordinateto the beneficiary,
who would relieve the beneficiaryfrom performingroutine duties inherent to operatingthe
business.Thefactthatthebeneficiaryhasbeengivena managerialjob title andgeneraloversight
Page7
authorityover the businessis insufficient to elevatehis position to a managerialor executive
capacity.
Thebeneficiary'sjob duties,asdescribedby thepetitioner,arenot indicativeof anemployeewhois
primarilyfocusedonthebroadgoalsandpoliciesof theorganization.Theactualdutiesthemselves
revealthe true natureof the employment.FedinBros. Co.,Ltd. v. Sava,724F. Supp.1103,1108
(E.D.N.Y.1989),affd, 905F.2d41 (2d.Cir. 1990).Thepetitionerhasnot establishedthatthe
beneficiaryis primarily engagedin directing and controlling a subordinatestaff comprisedof
professional,managerialor supervisoryemployees,nor hasit indicatedthat he is chargedwith
managinganessentialfunctionof thepetitioningorganization.Seesection101(a)(44)(A)of theAct.
Therefore,the AAO is not persuadedthat the beneficiarywould be employedin a primarily
managerialcapacity.
Beyondthedecisionof thedirector,the recordlacksa substantivejob descriptionestablishingwhat
job dutiesthe beneficiaryperformedduringhis employmentabroad.Therefore,thepetitionerhas
not establishedthat the beneficiarywasemployedby the foreignentity for at leastoneyearin a
qualifying capacityduring the three-yearperiod prior to the filing of the petition. Conclusory
assertionsregardingthebeneficiary'semploymentcapacityarenot sufficient. Merelyrepeatingthe
languageof the statuteor regulationsdoesnot satisfythepetitioner'sburdenof proof. FedinBros.
Co.,Ltd. v. Sava,724F. Supp.I 103,1108(E.D.N.Y.1989),affd, 905F. 2d 41 (2d.Cir. 1990);
AvyrAssociates,Inc. v.Meissner,1997WL 188942at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Theactualdutiesthemselves
will revealthetruenatureof theemployment.FedinBros.Co.,Ltd. v.Sava,724F. Supp.at 1108.
An applicationor petitionthat fails to complywith the technicalrequirementsof the law may be
deniedby theAAO evenif the ServiceCenterdoesnot identifyall of thegroundsfor denialin the
initial decision. SeeSpencerEnterprises,Inc. v. UnitedStates,229 F. Supp.2d 1025,1043(E.D.
Cal.2001),affd. 345F.3d683(9thCir. 2003);seealsoSoltanev.DOJ,381F.3d143,145(3d Cir.
2004)(notingthattheAAO reviewsappealson adenovobasis).Basedontheadditionalgroundsof
ineligibility discussedabove,thispetitioncannotbeapproved.
The AAO acknowledgesthat USCIS has previously approvedan L-1A petition filed by the
petitioneron behalfof the instantbeneficiary.ManyI-140immigrantpetitionsaredeniedafter
USCISapprovesprior nonimmigrant1-129L-1 petitions.See,e.g QData Consulting.Inc. v.INS,
293 F. Supp.2d 25 (D.D.C.2003);IKEA US v. USDept.of Justice,48 F. Supp.2d 22;Fedin
BrothersCo.Ltd. v.Sava,724F. Supp.I 103. Examiningtheconsequencesof anapprovedpetition,
thereis a significantdifferencebetweena nonimmigrantL-1A visaclassification,whichallowsan
aliento entertheUnitedStatestemporarily,andanimmigrantE-13visapetition,whichpermitsan
alien to apply for permanentresidencein the United Statesand,if granted,ultimatelyapply for
naturalizationasaUnitedStatescitizen.Cf §§204and214of theAct, 8U.S.C.§§1154and1184;
seealso § 316 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1427. BecauseUSCISspendslesstime reviewingI-129
nonimmigrantpetitionsthan I-140 immigrantpetitions,somenonimmigrantL-1A petitions are
simply approvedin error. Q Data Consulting,Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp.2d at 29-30;seealso 8
C.F.R.§ 214.2(1)(14)(i)(requiringno supportingdocumentationto file apetitionto extendanL-1A
petition'svalidity).
Page8
Despite the previously approvedpetition, USCIS does not have any authority to confer an
immigration benefit when the petitioner fails to meet its burden of proof in a subsequent
petition. Seesection291of the Act. Eachpetitionfiling is a separateproceedingwith a separate
record. See8 C.F.R. § 103.8(d). In makinga determinationof statutoryeligibility, USCIS is
limited to the informationcontainedin that individual record of proceeding.See8 C.F.R. §
103.2(b)(16)(ii).Basedonthelackof requiredevidenceof eligibility in thecurrentrecord,theAAO
findsthat thedirectorwasjustified in departingfrom the previousnonimmigrantpetitionapproval
by denyingtheinstantpetition.
Thepetitionwill bedeniedfor theabovestatedreasons,with eachconsideredasanindependentand
alternativebasisfor denial. In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenof provingeligibility for the
benefitsoughtremainsentirelywith the petitioner. Section291of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361. The
petitionerhasnot sustainedthatburden.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.