dismissed EB-1C Case: Sales And Export

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionof personalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
, U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U. S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve.N.W., Ms 2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: Âÿ$ j Q 2012 OFFICE:TEXASSERVICECENTER
1NRE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionforAlienWorkerasaMultinationalExecutiveorManagerPursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase. All of thedocuments
relatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedtotheofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquirythatyou mighthaveconcerningyour casemustbemadeto thatoffice.
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 reconsideror a motion to reopenin
accordancewith the instructionson Form I-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,with a fee of $630. The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha motioncanbe foundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.Do not file any motion
directly with theAAO. Pleasebeawarethat8C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto befiled within
30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseekstoreconsiderorreopen.
Thankyou,
erryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION:Thepreferencevisapetitionwasdeniedby theDirector,TexasServiceCenter.Thematteris
nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)onappeal.Theappealwill bedismissed.
The petitioner is a Florida corporation that is a "sales office and export services" company which seeksto
employ the beneficiary as its RegionalManager. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavorsto classify the
beneficiaryas an employment-basedimmigrantpursuantto section203(b)(1)(C)of the Immigrationand
NationalityAct (theAct), 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C),asamultinationalexecutiveormanager.
Thedirectordeniedthepetitionconcludingthatthepetitionerfailedto establishthatthebeneficiary'sproposed
employmentwiththeU.S.entitywouldbewithinaqualifyingmanagerialorexecutivecapacity.
Onappeal,counseldisputesthedirector'sfindingsandprovidesanappellatebrief layingoutthegroundsfor
challengingthedenial. Counselfor thepetitionercontendsthatthebeneficiaryis a functionmanagerasheis
responsiblefor managinga "key functionof thebusiness- to organize,directandcontroltheorganization."
Thisdecisionwill addressthebeneficiary'sproposedemploymentto determinewhetherthepetitionermeets
theapplicableeligibilitycriteria.
Section203(b)of theAct statesin pertinentpart:
(1)PriorityWorkers.- Visasshallfirst bemadeavailable. . . toqualifiedimmigrantswhoare
aliensdescribedin anyof thefollowingsubparagraphs(A) through(C):
* * *
(C) CertainMultinationalExecutivesandManagers.- An alienis described
in this subparagraphif the alien,in the 3 yearsprecedingthe time of the
alien'sapplicationfor classificationand admissioninto the United States
underthis subparagraph,hasbeenemployedfor at least1 yearby a firm or
corporationor otherlegalentityor anaffiliateor subsidiarythereofandwho
seeksto 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 languageof the statuteis specific in limiting this provision to only those executivesand managerswho
havepreviouslyworkedfor a firm,corporationor otherlegalentity,or anaffiliateor subsidiaryof thatentity,
andwhoarecomingtotheUnitedStatesto workfor thesameentity,oritsaffiliateor subsidiary.
A United Statesemployermay file a petitionon Form I-140 for classificationof an alien undersection
203(b)(1)(C)of theAct asa multinationalexecutiveor manager.No laborcertificationis requiredfor this
classification. Theprospectiveemployerin the United Statesmust furnisha job offer in the form of a
statementwhichindicatesthatthealienis to beemployedin theUnitedStatesin a managerialor executive
capacity.Suchastatementmustclearlydescribethedutiestobeperformedbythealien.
Section101(a)(44)(A)of theAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(44)(A),provides:
Page3
The term "managerialcapacity"meansan assignmentwithin an organizationin which the
employeeprimarily--
(i) manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or
componentof theorganization;
(ii) supervisesand controlsthe work of other supervisory,professional,or
managerialemployees,or managesan essential function within the
organization,oradepartmentor subdivisionof theorganization;
(iii) if anotheremployeeor other employeesare directly supervised,has the
authorityto hire and fire or recommendthoseas well as otherpersonnel
actions(suchaspromotionandleaveauthorization),orif nootheremployeeis
directly supervised,functionsat a seniorlevel within the organizational
hierarchyorwith respecttothefunctionmanaged;and
(iv) exercisesdiscretionovertheday-to-dayoperationsof theactivityor function
for which the employeehas authority. A first-line supervisoris not
consideredto be actingin a managerialcapacitymerelyby virtue of the
supervisor'ssupervisoryduties unless the employeessupervisedare
professional.
Section101(a)(44)(B)of theAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(44)(B),provides:
Theterm "executivecapacity"meansanassignmentwithin anorganizationin whichtheemployee
primarily--
(i) directsthemanagementof theorganizationor a majorcomponentor function
of theorganization;
(ii) establishesthegoalsandpoliciesof theorganization,component,or function;
(iii) exerciseswidelatitudein discretionarydecision-making;and
(iv) receivesonly generalsupervisionor directionfrom higherlevel executives,
theboardof directors,or stockholdersof theorganization.
In examiningtheexecutiveor managerialcapacityof thebeneficiary,USCISwill lookfirst to thepetitioner's
descriptionof thejob duties.See8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(5).Publishedcaselawclearlysupportsthepivotalrole
of a clearly definedjob description, as the actual duties themselvesreveal the true natureof the employment.
FedinBros.Co.,Ltd.v.Sava,724F. Supp.1103,1108(E.D.N.Y.1989),affd, 905F.2d41(2d.Cir. 1990);see
also 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(5). That beingsaid,however,USCISreviewsthe totality of the record,which
includesnot only thebeneficiary'sjob description,but alsotakesinto accountthenatureof thepetitioner's
business,theemploymentandremunerationof employees,aswell asthejob descriptionsof thebeneficiary's
subordinates,if any,andanyotherfactscontributingto a completeunderstandingof abeneficiary'sactualrole
within a givenentity.
Page4
Thedefinitionsof executiveandmanagerialcapacityhavetwo parts. First,thepetitionermustshowthatthe
beneficiaryperformsthehigh-levelresponsibilitiesthatarespecifiedin thedefinitions.Second,thepetitioner
mustprovethat the beneficiaryprimarily performsthesespecifiedresponsibilitiesand doesnot spenda
majorityof his or hertime on day-to-dayfunctions. ChampionWorld,Inc. v. INS,940F.2d 1533(Table),
1991WL 144470(9thCir.July30,1991).
Uponreviewof thepetitionandevidence,the petitionerhasnot establishedthat thebeneficiarywould be
employedin a managerialor executivecapacity.Whenexaminingtheexecutiveor managerialcapacityof the
beneficiary,the AAO will look first to the petitioner'sdescriptionof the job duties. See8 C.F.R. §
214.2(1)(3)(ii).Thepetitioner'sdescriptionof thejob dutiesmustclearlydescribethedutiesto beperformed
bythebeneficiaryandindicatewhethersuchdutiesareeitherin anexecutiveormanagerialcapacity.Id
In a letterdatedDecember3, 2009,counselfor thepetitionerprovideda list of dutiesto beperformedby the
beneficiaryin the positionof regionalmanagerand a breakdownof hoursper weekspenton eachduty.
Counselfor the petitioneralso statedthat the beneficiarywill "control the work of otherprofessionals
includingtheAccountantandOffice Manager/HRManager."
In responseto thedirector'srequestfor evidence,thepetitionerdescribedthebeneficiary'sdutiesin theUnited
Statesin a letterdatedMarch20,2010.Thepetitionerprovideda secondlist of dutiestobeperformedby the
beneficiaryand a percentagebreakdownof time spenton eachduty. The petitioner explainedthat the
beneficiary usedto supervisean office managerand warehouseman,"however, thesepositions are currently
outsourcedasacostsavingmeasure."Thepetitioneralsostatedthatthepetitioner"outsourcesits accounting
servicesto a thirdparty, Thepetitionerexplainedthatthedutiesof theofficemanagerinclude
"answeringphones,taking orders,generalbookkeepingand filing," and the duties of the warehouseman
include"acceptdeliveries,coordinateshipmentsandmaintaininventorycontrol."
Thepetitionersubmittedan organizationalchartthatstates:"Proposedstaffingfor theperiodof December
2009throughMarch2010." The chart indicatedthe beneficiaryas generalmanagerwho supervisesan
outsourcedaccountantandan office manager/secretary(temporaryposition),andtwo warehousementhat are
also indicated as temporary positions. The chart also indicated a sales manager and two salesrepresentatives
that areunfilled positionsbut areprojectedfor 2011. ThepetitionersubmittedForm 1120,U.S. Corporation
IncomeTax Return,for 2009 that indicatedcompensationto the beneficiaryof $126,908.00anda total of
salariesandwagesfor employeesother thanthe beneficiary as$8,166.00for 2009.
On appeal,counselfor thepetitionerclaimsthat the beneficiaryis a functionmanagerashemanagesthe
essentialfunctionof managingtheentireoperationsof thepetitioner. Dueto the overlygeneralandvaguelist
of job duties,the petitionerhas failed to clarify how muchtime the beneficiarywill spendperforming
qualifyingtasksversusthosethatwouldbedeemednon-qualifying.
In describingthe beneficiary'spositionin the UnitedStates,thepetitionerstatedthatthe beneficiarywill
"managetheentireU.S.organization,""overseeall financialaspectsof thecompanyandsetstrategicpolicies
andprocedures,"and"ensurethatthemanagerialproceduresandpoliciesof thecompanyabideby all current
lawsandregulations." The petitionerhasnot shownwhat specifictasksactuallyfall within thesebroad
categories.Merelyusingtheterm"manage"to describethebeneficiary'sfunctiondoesnotestablishthatthe
supervisorytasksthebeneficiarywill performareof a qualifyingnature. Withoutfurtherinformation,it
appearsthatthebeneficiarywill beprovidingtheservicesof thebusinessratherthandirectingsuchactivities
Page5
throughsubordinateemployees.An employeewho "primarily"performsthe tasksnecessaryto producea
productor providea serviceis not consideredto be "primarily" employedin a managerialor executive
capacity. Seesections101(a)(44)(A)and (B) of the Act (requiringthat one "primarily" perform the
enumeratedmanagerialor executiveduties);seealsoMatterof ChurchScientologyInternational,19I & N
Dec.593,604(Comm.1988).
Thejob descriptionalso includesseveralnon-qualifyingdutiessuchas the beneficiarywill "overseeall
financialaspectsof thecompanyandsetstrategicpoliciesandobjectives,""prepareannualbudgetsandensure
thatcompanyrevenuesandexpendituresfall withinbudgetedamounts,""controltheexpendituresof company
funds,"and"establishproceduresfor implementingthepayrollprocessandcompanybenefitsin compliance
withall lawsandregulations."It appearsthatthebeneficiarywill bedevelopingandmarketingtheservicesof
thebusiness,handlingall of thesalesoperations,negotiatingcontracts,andhandlingtheinventoryordering
andshippingprocesses,ratherthandirectingsuchactivitiesthroughsubordinateemployees.Thepetitionerdid
notidentifyanyemployeeswhoactuallyassistedthebeneficiaryin budgeting,marketingandsales,indicating
thatthebeneficiaryis theoneto carryout theseoperationalfunctions,whichareoutsidetheparametersof
whatwouldbe deemedasbeingwithin a managerialor executivecapacity. An employeewho "primarily"
performsthetasksnecessaryto producea productor to provideservicesis notconsideredto be"primarily"
employedin a managerialor executivecapacity.Seesections101(a)(44)(A)and(B) of theAct (requiringthat
one "primarily" perform the enumeratedmanagerialor executiveduties);see also Matter of Church
ScientologyIntn 'l., 19I&N Dec.at 604.
An analysisof thenatureof thepetitioner'sbusinessunderminesthepetitioner'sassertionthatthebeneficiary
is employedin a managerialor executivecapacity.Onappeal,thepetitionerstatesthatin 2009it employed
two additionalemployees,anofficemanageranda warehouseman,butthesepositionswere"outsourcedto a
staffingagencyin an effort to maintainprofitability." However,thepetitionerdid not submitevidenceto
establishthatthepetitioneremployscontractorssuchasa contractwith thestaffingagency,paystubsor tax
formssuchas Form 1099. Thus,it appearsfrom the recordthat the beneficiary,as the only full-time
employee,may beprimarily engagedin performingthe financeoperations,marketing,sales,andbusiness
developmentactivities,andall of thevariousoperationaltasksinherentin operatingabusinessonadailybasis,
such as paying bills, handling customer transactions, ordering products and running the shipping services, and
negotiatingcontracts, Basedon the record of proceeding,the beneficiary'sjob dutiesareprincipally composed
of non-qualifyingdutiesthatprecludehim from functioningin a primarilymanagerialor executiverole.
Counselcontendsthatthebeneficiarymanagesanessentialfunction within thepetitioner'sorganization.The
term "function manager"appliesgenerallywhena beneficiarydoesnot superviseor control the work of a
subordinatestaff but instead is primarily responsiblefor managingan "essentialfunction" within the
organization.Seesection101(a)(44)(A)(ii)of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(44)(A)(ii).Theterm"essential
function"is not definedby statuteor regulation.If a petitionerclaimsthatthebeneficiaryis managingan
essentialfunction,the petitionermust furnisha writtenjob offer that clearly describesthe dutiesto be
performedin managingtheessentialfunction,i.e.identifythefunctionwith specificity,articulatetheessential
natureof thefunction,andestablishtheproportionof thebeneficiary'sdailydutiesattributedto managingthe
essentialfunction.See8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(1)(3)(ii).In addition,thepetitioner'sdescriptionof thebeneficiary's
dailydutiesmustdemonstratethatthebeneficiarymanagesthefunctionratherthanperformsthedutiesrelated
to thefunction. An employeewhoprimarilyperformsthetasksnecessaryto producea productor to provide
servicesis not consideredto beemployedin a managerialor executivecapacity.Boyang,Ltd. v. LN.S.,67
F.3d305(Table),1995WL 576839(9thCir, 1995)(citingMatterof ChurchScientologyInternational,19I&N
Page6
Dec.at 604.Thepetitionerhasnotprovidedevidencethatthebeneficiarymanagesanessentialfunction.The
petitionerprovideda briefandvaguejob descriptionthatdid notdiscusshowthebeneficiaryis managingan
essentialfunction. Only on appealdid counselfor thepetitionerclaimthatthebeneficiaryis managmgan
essentialfunction. A visapetitionmaynotbeapprovedbasedon speculationof futureeligibility or afterthe
petitionerorbeneficiarybecomeseligibleunderanewsetof facts.SeeMatterofMichelin TireCorp.,17I&N
Dec.248(Reg.Comm'r1978);MatterofKatigbak,14I&N Dec.45,49(Comm'r1971).A petitionermaynot
makematerialchangesto a petitionin aneffortto makea deficientpetitionconformto USCISrequirements.
SeeMatterofIzummi,22I&N Dec.169,176(Assoc.Comm'r1998).Thebeneficiary'sjob descriptiondoes
notestablishthatthebeneficiaryisprimarilyperformingin amanagerialcapacity.
Beyondtherequireddescriptionof thejob duties,USCISreviewsthetotalityof therecordwhenexaminingthe
claimedmanagerialor executivecapacityof a beneficiary,includingthepetitioner'sorganizationalstructure,
the dutiesof the beneficiary'ssubordinateemployees,the presenceof other employeesto relieve the
beneficiaryfromperformingoperationsduties,thenatureof thepetitioner'sbusiness,andanyotherfactorsthat
will contributeto acompleteunderstandingof abeneficiary'sactualdutiesandrolein a business.In thecase
of a functionmanager,whereno subordinatesaredirectlysupervised,theseotherfactorsmay includethe
beneficiary'spositionwithin the organizationalhierarchy,the depthof the petitioner'soperations,the indirect
supervisionof employeeswithinthescopeof thefunctionmanaged,andthevalueof thebudgets,products,or
servicesthat thebeneficiary manages.
Thepetitionerhasnotidentifiedemployeeswithinthepetitioner'sorganization,subordinateto thebeneficiary,
whowouldrelievethebeneficiaryfromperformingroutinedutiesinherentto operatingthebusiness.Thefact
thatthebeneficiaryhasbeengivena managerialjob title andgeneraloversightauthorityoverthebusinessis
insufficientto elevatehispositiontothatof a "functionmanager"ascontemplatedbythegoverningstatuteand
regulations.As discussedabove,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthatthebeneficiary'sdutiesareprimarily
managerialin nature,andthushecannotbeconsidereda "functionmanager."
Otherthanstatingthatthebeneficiarywill beresponsiblefor managingthe essentialfunctionof overseeing
"thePetitioner'sentireU.S.operations,"counselprovidesno explanationor evidencein supportof his claim
that the beneficiary would qualify as a function manager pursuant to section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. The
unsupported statements of counsel on appeal or in a motion are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any
evidentiaryweight.SeeINS v. Phinpathya,464 U.S. 183,188-89n.6 (1984);Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez,17
I&N Dec.503(BIA 1980).
In summary,thepetitionerhasfailedto providesufficientevidenceto establishthatthebeneficiarywouldbe
employedin theUnitedStatesin a qualifyingmanagerialor executivecapacity.Therefore,thepetitioncannot
beapproved.
Furthermore,therecorddoesnot supporta fmdingof eligibility basedon additionalgroundsthatwerenot
previouslyaddressedin thedirector'sdecision.Therecordlackssubstantivejob descriptionsestablishingwhat
job dutiesthe beneficiaryperformedduringhis employmentabroad. Conclusoryassertionsregardingthe
beneficiary'semploymentcapacityare not sufficient. Merely repeatingthe languageof the statuteor
regulationsdoesnotsatisfythepetitioner'sburdenof proof. FedinBros.Co.,Ltd.v.Sava,724F. Supp.1103,
1108(E.D.N.Y.1989),aff'd,905F. 2d41(2d.Cir. 1990);AvyrAssociates,Inc. v.Meissner,1997WL 188942
at *5 (S.D.N.Y.).Theactualdutiesthemselveswill revealthetruenatureof theemployment.FedinBros.Co.,
Ltd. v. Sava,724F. Supp.at 1108. Thepetitionerhasnot establishedthatthebeneficiarywasemployed
Page7
abroadin a qualifyingmanagerialor executivecapacity. For this additionalreason,thepetitioncannotbe
approved.
An applicationorpetitionthatfailsto complywith thetechnicalrequirementsof thelawmaybedeniedby the
AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See
SpencerEnterprises,Inc. v. UnitedStates,229F. Supp.2d 1025,1043(E.D.Cal.2001),affd, 345F.3d683
(9th Cir. 2003);seealsoSoltanev. DOJ, 381F.3d 143,145(3d Cir. 2004)(notingthat theAAO reviews
appealsonadenovobasis).
The petition will be deniedfor the abovestatedreasons,with eachconsideredas an independentand
alternativebasisfordenial.In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenof provingeligibilityfor thebenefitsought
remainsentirelywiththepetitioner.Section291of theAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1361.Thepetitionerhasnotsustained
thatburden.
ORDER: Theappealis dismisséd.