dismissed EB-1C Case: Sales

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
. L. U. s. CitizenshipandImmigrationservices
idenniY ^dministrative^µµca18°ffice (^^°)
1 20MassachusettsAve.N.W.,MS2090
prevent ersona privacy Washington,DC 20529-2090
invasion0 P
PUBLIC COPY us. citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: f($ 0 FFICE: NEBRASKASERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor AlienWorkerasaMultinationalExecutiveor ManagerPursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct,8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C)
ONBEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Thisis thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOfficein yourcase.All documentshavebeenreturnedto
theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Any furtherinquirymustbemadetothatoffice.
If you believethelaw wasinappropriatelyappliedby us in reachingour decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile amotionto reconsideror amotionto reopen.The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha requestcan be found at 8 C.F.R.§103.5. All motionsmustbe
submittedto theoffice thatoriginally decidedyour caseby filing a FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,
with a feeof $630. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthatanymotionmustbe filed
within30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseekstoreconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
erryRhew
f, AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.useis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION:Thepreferencevisapetitionwasdeniedby theDirector,TexasServiceCenter.Thematteris
nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)on appeal Theappealwill besummarilydismissed.
Thepetitioneris a Californiacorporationthatseeksto employthebeneficiaryasits regionalsalesmanager.
Accordingly,thepetitionerendeavorsto classifythebeneficiaryasanemployment-basedimmigrantpursuant
to section203(b)(1)(C)of the ImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C),asa
multinationalexecutiveor manager.The directordeniedthepetitionbasedon the determinationthatthe
petitionerfailed to establishthat the beneficiarywas employedby the petitioner'sforeignaffiliate in a
managerialor executivecapacity.
On March 4, 2010, counsel,on behalf of the petitioner, filed an appealseekingreview of the director's
decision. Counseldisagreedwith the director'sfinding and indicatedthat an appellatebrief would be
submittedfurtherexpoundingonthespecificgroundsfor disputingthedenial.Therecordshowsthatcounsel
did in factsubmitasupplementalstatement,whichtheAAO receivedonApril 5, 2010alongwith additional
evidence,which includeddocumentationshowingthebeneficiary'spreviouslyapprovednonimmigrantvisas,
the beneficiary'sjob descriptions,andothersupportingdocumentsthat hadbeenpreviouslysubmittedin
connectionwith the currentForm I-140 filing as weII as prior Form I-129 filings throughwhich the
beneficiaryhadbeenaccordednonimmigrantstatus.
Section203(b)of theActstatesin pertinentpart:
(1) PriorityWorkers.-- Visasshallfirst bemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswho
arealiensdescribedin anyof thefollowing subparagraphs(A) through(C):
(C) CertainMultinationalExecutivesandManagers.-- An alienis described
in this subparagraphif thealien,in the 3 yearsprecedingthe time of the
alien's application for classification and admission into the United States
under this subparagraph,hasbeenemployed for at least 1 year by a firm or
corporation or other legal entity or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof and who
seeksto enter the United Statesin order to continue to renderservicesto the
same employer or to a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is
managerialor executive.
If thealienis alreadyin theUnitedStatesworkingfor thesameemployeror a subsidiaryor affiliateof the
entitythatemployedthealienoverseas,thepetitionermustestablishthatthealienwasemployedbytheentity
abroadfor at leastoneyearin a managerialor executivecapacityin thethreeyearsprecedingentryasa
nonimmigrant.8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B). Unlike the nonimmigrantL-1 visa, this immigrantvisa
classificationmakesno provision for an alien who was employedabroadas a non-managerialL-1B
"specializedknowledge"employee.Cf.8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(l)(3)(iv)("theworkin theUnitedStatesneednotbe
thesameworkwhichthealienperformedabroad").
In thepresentcase,it is uncontestedthatthebeneficiarywasemployedin Canadaasa non-managerialsales
representativefrom November1999to April 2005. The beneficiaryenteredtheUnitedStatesasan L-1B
Page3
specializedknowledgeworkerin May 2005to continuehis work asa salesrepresentativefor theUnited
Statessubsidiary.Thepetitionermadeno representationin eithertheinitial petitionor theresponseto the
director'srequestfor evidencethat the beneficiarywas employedabroadin a managerialor executive
capacity.Thisemploymenthistoryissupportedbythebeneficiary'sresume.
Onappeal,counselclaimsthatthebeneficiary'semploymentas"regionalsalesmanager"for thepetitioner
shouldsatisfythe regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B),howeverthis employmentwasclearlyin the
UnitedStatesandnotabroad.
Theregulationat8C.F.R.§ 103.3(a)(1)(v)states,in pertinentpart:
An officer to whomanappealis takenshallsummarilydismissanyappealwhentheparty
concernedfails to identifyspecificallyanyerroneousconclusionof law or statementof fact
for theappeal.
After reviewingcounsel'sappellatebrief,theAAO findsthatcounselfailedto specifyanylegalor factual
errorsmadeby thedirectorin issuingtheadversedecision.Whileit is clearthatcounseldisagreeswith the
director's decision and maintainsthat the beneficiary warrants the immigrant classification of a multinational
manager or executive, none of the assertions in the appellate brief directly address the main issue in
contention,i.e., that the beneficiary'sforeign position as salesrepresentativecannot be deemedas
employmentabroadin a qualifyingmanagerialor executiveposition. Rather,counselfocusesprimarilyon
restatingthe proceduralhistory of the case,listing the factualhistory of the beneficiary'sU.S.-based
employment,andparaphrasingtherelevantstatutoryandregulatoryprovisions.
Uponreview,counselfailedtoidentifyspecificallyanyerroneousconclusionof lawor statementof factother
thanincorrectlycontendingthat the beneficiary'semploymentin the UnitedStatesmeetsthe regulatory
criteriacitedat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B),whichrequiresthepetitionerto establishthatthebeneficiarywas
employedabroadin a qualifyingmanagerialor executiveposition. Counselcitesno factsin supportof this
contentionnorpointstoaspecificfactualorlegalerrorthatresultedin thedirector'sfinding.
In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenof provingeligibility for thebenefitsoughtremainsentirelywith the
petitioner. Section291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Inasmuchas the petitioner has failed to identify
specifically an erroneousconclusion of law or a statementof fact in this proceeding,the petitioner has not
sustainedthatburden.Therefore,theappealwill besummarilydismissed.
ORDER: Theappealissummarilydismissed.