dismissed EB-1C Case: Sales And Marketing

U.S.DepartmentofHomelandSecurity
identifying data deleted to U. S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
Offìceof AdministrativeAppealsMS 2090
preVent Clearly unWarranted Washington,DC 20529-2090
invasionofpersonalprivacy U.S.Citizenship
and Irnmigration
Services
FILE: OFFICE:NEBRASKASERVICECENTER Date:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien WorkerasaMultinationalExecutiveor ManagerPursuantto
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 theoffice thatoriginally decidedyour case.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquiry thatyoumight haveconcerningyour casemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believethe law was inappropriatelyappliedby us in reachingour decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyou wishto haveconsidered,you mayfile amotionto reconsideror amotionto reopen.The
specific requirementsfor filing such a requestcan be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be
submittedto theoffice thatoriginally decidedyour caseby filing aFormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,
with a fee of $585. Pleasebe awarethat 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthat any motion must be filed
within30daysofthedecisionthatthemotionseekstoreconsiderorreopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The preferencevisa petition was deniedby the Director, NebraskaServiceCenter. The
matteris nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO) onappeal.Theappealwill bedismissed.
ThepetitionerisaCaliforniacorporationthatseeksto employthebeneficiaryinthepositionof vicepresident
of internationalsalesandmarketing. Accordingly,the petitionerendeavorsto classifythe beneficiaryasan
employment-basedimmigrantpursuantto section203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct (the
Act), 8U.S.C. § l l53(b)(1)(C), as a multinationalexecutiveor manager. The director deniedthe petition
basedonthefinding thatthepetitionerfailedto establishthat it would employthebeneficiaryin a managerial
or executivecapacity.
On appeal,counseldisputesthe director'sdecision,assertingthatthe directormisinterpretedthebeneficiary's
job descriptionandfailedto identify a basisfor denialwith sufficientspecificity.
Section203(b)of theAct statesin pertinentpart:
(1) PriorityWorkers.-- Visasshallfirst bemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswho
arealiensdescribedin anyof thefollowing subparagraphs(A) through(C):
* * *
(C) CertainMultinationalExecutivesandManagers.-- An alien is described
in this subparagraphif the alien, in the 3 yearsprecedingthe time of the
alien's application for classificationand admissioninto the United States
underthis subparagraph,hasbeenemployedfor at least1 yearby a firm or
corporationor otherlegalentityor anaffiliateor subsidiarythereofandwho
seeksto entertheUnitedStatesin orderto continueto renderservicesto the
sameemployeror to a subsidiaryor affiliate thereof in a capacitythat is
managerialor executive.
The languageof the statuteis specificin limiting this provisionto only thoseexecutivesandmanagerswho
havepreviouslyworkedfor afirm,corporationor otherlegalentity,oranaffiliateor subsidiaryofthatentity,
andwho arecomingto theUnited Statesto work for thesameentity,or its affiliate or subsidiary.
A United Statesemployermay file a petition on Form I-140 for classificationof an alien under section
203(b)(1)(C)of the Act asa multinationalexecutiveor manager.No labor certification is requiredfor this
classification. The prospectiveemployerin the United Statesmust furnish a job offer in the form of a
statementwhich indicatesthat the alien is to be employedin the United Statesin a managerialor executive
capacity. Sucha statementmustclearlydescribethedutiesto beperformedby thealien.
Theprimaryissuein thisproceedingis whetherthepetitionersubmittedsufficientevidenceto establishthatit
would employthebeneficiaryin theUnitedStatesin a qualifyingmanagerialorexecutivecapacity.
Section101(a)(44)(A)oftheAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(44)(A),provides:
The term "managerialcapacity"meansan assignmentwithin an organizationin which the
employeeprimarily--
Page3
(i) managesthe organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or
componentof theorganization;
(ii) supervisesand controls the work of other supervisory,professional,or
managerial employees, or manages an essential function within the
organization,or a departmentor subdivisionof theorganization;
(iii) if another employeeor other employeesare directly supervised,has the
authority to hire and fire or recommendthose as well as other personnel
actions(suchaspromotionandleaveauthorization),or if no otheremployee
is directly supervised,functionsat a seniorlevel within the organizational
hierarchyor with respectto thefunctionmanaged;and
(iv) exercisesdiscretionovertheday-to-dayoperationsof the activity or function
for which the employee has authority. A first-line supervisor is not
consideredto be acting in a managerialcapacitymerely by virtue of the
supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees superv,isedare
professional.
Section101(a)(44)(B)oftheAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(44)(B),provides:
The term "executive capacity" means an assignmentwithin an organization in which the
employeeprimarily--
(i) directsthemanagementof theorganizationor a majorcomponentor function
of theorganization;
(ii) establishesthe goals and policies of the organization, component,or
function;
(iii) exerciseswide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and
(iv) receivesonly generalsupervisionor directionfrom higher level executives,
theboardof directors,or stockholdersof theorganization.
In supportof the Form I-140, the presidentof the petitioning entity, submitteda support
letterdatedFebruary13,2008on behalfof the petitioner. ndicatedthat the beneficiarywould be
employedwithin a qualifyingexecutivecapacityandproceededto list the componentsthat comprisethe
proposedemployment. As the director includedkey portionsof thejob descriptionin the denial,the AAO
neednotrepeatthisinformationintheinstantdecision.
OnJanuary28,2009,thedirectorissueda requestfor evidence(RFE)instructingthepetitionerto provide,
inter alia, a list of the specific daily tasks that will comprisethe beneficiary'sproposedemployment
accompaniedby thepercentageof timethatwill beallocatedto eachof thelistedtasks.Thepetitionerwas
also asked to provide a detailed organizationalchart illustrating the current staffing structure of the
organizationandlistingthedepartmentsthatcomprisetheentityaswell asthejob dutiesof thebeneficiary's
immediatesupervisorandsubordinateemployees.Additionally,thepetitionerwasaskedto providework
Page4
schedulesfor the lasttwo monthsbasedonthe issuedateof theRFEaswell asquarterlywagestatementsfor
thelasttwoquartersof 2007andthefirstquarterof 2008andIRSFormW-2sand/orForm1099sfor2007.
In response, ubmittedanotherletteron behalfof the petitioner. The letter,datedFebruary
26, 2009, statesthat the beneficiaryoverseesfour full-time employeesand a six-personsalesteam. The
positionstitles of the full-time employeesincludea salesandmarketingmanager,an inventorycontrol/order
processingmanager,an accountsreceivableemployee,and a financial controller. providedthe
followinghourlybreakdownof thebeneficiary'sdailyresponsibilities:
1. Generalstrategyplanningdiscussionswith [thep]resident: 1hourperday
2. Managingoffice employees,dealingwith problems,etc.: 1hourperday
3. Branddevelopment,designandmarketingstrategies: 3 hoursperday
4. Product development, liaising with suppliers, market
updatesandfashiontrends(includesreadingand studying
severallocal and internationaljewelry fashion magazines,
contactwith jewelry suppliers,andmonitoringnewtrends):
2 hoursper day
5. Discussionswith salesagentsto obtainfeedbackfrom the
marketplace: 1hourperday
6. Financialassistanceandgeneralmanagementtasks: 1 hour per day
restatedthe initially submitted job description referring to the original description as a
representationof thebeneficiary'sspecificjob duties.
The RFEresponsealsoincludedthe petitioner'sorganizationalchart,which depictedMt the top of
the hierarchyasthe companypresidentandthe beneficiary'sdirect supervisor. The beneficiary'spositionis
depictedas secondin commandwith a salesandmarketingmanager,an inventorycontrol/orderprocessing
manager,an accountsreceivableemployee,and a financial controller, followed by five independently
contractedsalespeopleasthebeneficiary'ssubordinates.
In a decisiondatedMay 1,2009thedirectordeniedthepetitionconcludingthatthejob descriptionsofferedin
supportof thepetitionandin responseto theRFEfailedto establishthatthebeneficiarywouldprimarily
performtaskswithin a qualifyingmanagerialor executivecapacity. The directorfoundthatthe petitioner
providedjob descriptionswith limitedevidentiaryvaluedueto theiroveralllackof specificjob duties.The
directorfurtherfound that the beneficiarydoesnot overseethe work of supervisory,professional,or
managerialpersonnel.
On appeal,counselfirst assertsthatthe director'sdenialis deficientbecauseit doesnot statewith sufficient
specificitythe basisfor denialper 8 C.F.R.§ 103.3(a)(1)(i).TheAAO findsthat counsel'sargumentis
withoutmerit.
Page5
The objective of a notice of denial is to provide the petitioner or applicant with sufficient information
explainingwhy the petition is beingdenied. In the presentmatter,the directornotified the petitionerthat a
determinationof ineligibility was basedon the petitioner'sfailure to establishthat the beneficiarywould
primarily perform tasks of a qualifying nature. The director went beyondthat generaldetermination,
explainingfurther that the beneficiary'sjob descriptionslacked sufficient detail and that the beneficiary's
subordinatescould not be deemedas supervisory,professional,or managerialemployees. The AAO finds
that thesestatementsadequatelyinformedthe petitionerof the findingsthat causedthe directorto denythe
petition.Therefore,thedenialsatisfiedtheprovisionsspecifiedat8C.F.R.§ 103.3(a)(1)(i).
That being said, it is importantto note the significanceof providing a detailedjob description,which is
requiredby regulationat 8 C.F.R. §204.5(j)(5)and is amongthe key factorsthat U.S. Citizenshipand
ImmigrationServices(USCIS)will examinein determiningwhetherabeneficiary'spositionfits thedefinition
of managerialor executivecapacity. Publishedcaselaw reiteratesthe needfor a detailedjob description,
finding that the actualdutiesthemselvesrevealthe true natureof the employment.Fedin Bros. Co.,Ltd. v.
Sava,724F. Supp.1103,1108(E.D.N.Y.1989),affd, 905F.2d41(2d.Cir. 1990).Thedirectoradequately
stressedthe significanceof a detailedjob descriptionby issuing an RFE that expresslyinstructedthe
petitionerto providea list of the beneficiary'sproposeddaily tasksandto assigneachtaskthe percentageof
time that the beneficiarywould spendperformingit. The petitioner'sresponseshowsthat the petitionerdid
not follow the specific instructionsof the RFE. Insteadof listing separatejob duties andtheir respective
percentagesof time,thepetitionergroupedjob dutiesandresponsibilitiestogetherandprovidedanhourly
breakdownto illustratethebeneficiary'sdaily activities.
The AAO finds that the informationprovidedwasnot sufficiently detailedandfailed to adequatelyidentify
the beneficiary'sspecifictasksin light of the petitioner'sorganizationalstructureat the time of filing. For
instance,the petitionerindicatedthat one hour of the beneficiary'stime would be allocatedto "[m]anaging
office employees,dealing with problems,etc." The .petitioner did not identify the specific tasks the
beneficiarywould performin managingsubordinates,it did not identify the specificproblemsthe beneficiary
would handle,nor did thepetitioneridentify what otherspecifictaskswould be performedduringthat hour.
Thepetitionerstatedthat thebeneficiarywould devoteanotherthreehoursof his time to branddevelopment
and design and marketing strategies. However, the petitioner did not explain what specific tasks the
beneficiarywould perform or the beneficiary'sactualrole in developingthe petitioner'sbrandand creating
designand marketingstrategies. In other words, would the beneficiarycollaboratewith subordinate
employeesand if so, what would be the beneficiary'stasksversusthe tasksof otherswith respectto these
generalbusinessobjectives?Thepetitioner'sclaim that onehourof the beneficiary'stime would be devoted
to financialassistanceandgeneralmanagementis equallyvague,failing to definewhatis meantby "financial
assistance"or "generalmanagementtasks."
The petitioner also indicated that two hours of the beneficiary'stime would be devoted to product
development,communicatingwith suppliers,and monitoring and updatingfashiontrends. However,these
job duties are indicative of daily operationaltasks. When consideringthe time spentperforming these
operationaltasksin light of the abovefinding-that five hoursof the beneficiary'sdayremainsundefinedby
specifictasks-it becomesapparentthat the petitionerhasnot establishedthat the primary portion of the
beneficiary'stime would beallocatedto managerial-or executive-leveltasks.
In addition to addressingthe providedjob descriptions,the AAO finds it necessaryto point out that the
documentationsubmitteddoesnot establishthatthepetitionerhadtheclaimednumberof full-time employees
Page6
atthetimeof filing. Specifically,thepetitionerhasindicatedbothin thesupportletterthataccompaniedthe
FormI-140andin its organizationalchartthatthebeneficiaryhasandwouldcontinueto overseefour direct
employeesof thecompany.Thesefouremployeesarein additionto thebeneficiary'sownpositionandthe
positionof presidentfor a total of six employees.However,a review of the petitioner'sfirst quarterlywage
reportshowsthatthepetitionerreportedwagesfor only threeemployeesin February2008,themonthduring
which thepetitionwasfiled. It is incumbentuponthe petitionerto resolveany inconsistenciesin the record
by independentobjectiveevidence.Any attemptto explainor reconcilesuchinconsistencieswill not suffice
unlessthepetitionersubmitscompetentobjectiveevidencepointingto wherethetruth lies. Matter ofHo, 19
I&N Dec. 582, 591-92(BIA 1988). It is unclearwhich individuals were actually employedand which
positionswerefilled at thetime of filing the petition. As such,in additionto the ambiguousjob description
thepetitionerprovidedin responseto theRFE,theAAO questionsthepetitioner'soverallability to relievethe
beneficiaryfrom havingto primarily performnon-qualifyingtasks.
As indicatedabove,whenexaminingtheexecutiveor managerialcapacityof thebeneficiary,theAAO will
look first to thepetitioner'sdescriptionof thejob duties.See8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(5).TheAAO will then
considerthis informationin light of thepetitioner'sorganizationalhierarchy,thebeneficiary'spositiontherein,
andthe petitioner'soverall ability to relievethe beneficiaryfrom havingto primarily performthe daily
operationaltasks. In the presentmatter,the AAO finds that the recordlacksa comprehensivedescriptionof
the beneficiary'sday-to-daytasksanddoesnot adequatelyestablishthe availability of supportpersonnelwho
would performthe petitioner'sdaily operationaltaskssuchthat the beneficiarywould be ableto primarily
focusontheperformanceof managerialor executiveduties.
It is notedthat anemployeewho "primarily" performsthetasksnecessaryto producea productor to provide
servicesis not consideredto be "primarily" employedin a managerialor executivecapacity. Seesections
101(a)(44)(A)and (B) of the Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumeratedmanagerialor
executiveduties);seealsoMatter of ChurchScientologyInternational, 19I&N Dec.593,604(Comm.1988).
In the instantcase,the lack of adequateinformation explainingwhat specifictasksthe beneficiarywould
perform in meetinghis generaljob responsibilitiesprecludesthe AAO from being able to affirmatively
concludethat the beneficiarywould primarily perform managerialor executiveduties. Therefore,on the
basis of the above findings, the AAO concludesthat the petitioner has failed to establishthat the beneficiary
would beemployedin a managerialor executivecapacity.
Additionally, while not fully addressedin the denial,the AAO finds that the petitionerfailed to providean
adequatedescriptionof the beneficiary'semploymentabroadandthereforefailed to meetthe provisionsof
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B),which statesthatthepetitionermustestablishthatthe beneficiarywasemployed
abroadin a qualifyingmanagerialor executivepositionfor at leastoneout of thethreeyearsprior to his entry
to the UnitedStatesasa nonimmigrantto work for the sameemployer. In the instantmatter,the director
specificallyaddressedthis issuein the RFEby instructingthe petitionerto.providea detailedanalysisof the
beneficiary'sdaily activities during his employmentabroad. However,the petitionerfailed to provide the
requestedinformation. Therefore,theAAO cannotconcludethatthebeneficiarywasemployedabroadwithin
aqualifyingmanagerialor executivecapacity.
An applicationor petitionthatfailsto complywith thetechnicalrequirementsof thelawmaybedeniedby
theAAO evenif theServiceCenterdoesnotidentifyall of thegroundsfor denialin theinitialdecision.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 the AAO reviews
Page7
appealsonadenovobasis).Therefore,basedontheadditionalgroundof ineligibilitydiscussedabove,this
petitioncannotbeapproved.
The petition will be denied for the above statedreasons,with each consideredas an independentand
alternativebasisfor denial. In visa petitionproceedings,the burdenof provingeligibility for the benefit
soughtremainsentirelywith the petitioner. Section291 of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361. Thepetitionerhasnot
sustainedthatburden.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.