dismissed EB-1C Case: Software Localization

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington. DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 0 1 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1 1 53(b)(I)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that ofice. 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the employment-based petition. The matter 
is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a corporation organized in the State of California in March 1999. It provides localization 
and internationalization engineering, consulting, and management service. It seeks to employ the beneficiary 
as its president. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based 
immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
ij 1 153(b)(I)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
The director determined that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary would be employed in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity for the United States petitioner. 
On appeal, the petitioner provides additional documentation to show that the beneficiary is employed as an 
executive. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(C) Certain Multinational Executives and Managers. -- An alien is 
described in this subparagraph if the alien, in the 3 years preceding 
the time of the alien's application for classification and admission 
into the United States under this subparagraph, has been employed 
for at least 1 year by a firm or corporation or other legal entity or an 
affiliate or subsidiary thereof and who seeks to 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 language of the statute is specific in limiting this provision to only those executives and managers who 
have previously worked for the firm, corporation or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary of that 
entity, and are coming to the United States to work for the same entity, or its affiliate or subsidiary. 
A United States employer may file a petition on Fonn 1-140 for classification of an alien under section 
203(b)(l)(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. No labor certification is required for this 
classification. The prospective employer in the United States must furnish a job offer in the form of a 
statement that indicates that the alien is to be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity. Such a statement must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the alien. Set: 8 C.F.R. 
3 204.5(j)(5). 
The issue in this proceeding is whether the beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive 
capacity for the United States entity. 
Section 10 1 (a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 10 l(a)(44)(A), provides: 
The term "managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily 
I. manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or 
component of the organization; 
. . 
11. supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees, or manages an essential function within the 
organization, or a department or subdivision of the organization; 
... 
111. if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the 
authority to hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel 
actions (such as promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee 
is directly supervised, functions at a senior level within the organizational 
hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and 
iv. exercises discretion over the day to day operations of the activity or function 
for which the employee has authority. A first line supervisor is not 
considered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the 
supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are 
professional. 
Section 101 (a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. # 1 101(a)(44)(B), provides: 
The term "executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily 
I. directs the management of the organization or a major component or function 
of the organization; 
ii. establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or 
function; 
... 
111. exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision making; and 
iv. receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, 
the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
Page 4 
In a February 25, 2003 letter appended to the petition, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary's duties were 
to: 
[Dlevelop business and liaise between U.S. subsidiary and parent company; plan, develop 
and establish policies of subsidiary in accordance with board directives and corporation 
charter; confer with company officials to plan business objectives; develop organizational 
policies to coordinate functions and operations between parent company and U.S. subsidiary. 
On June 1, 2004, the director requested further evidence on the issue of the beneficiary's managerial or 
executive capacity. The director requested: an organizational chart describing its managerial hierarchy and 
staffing levels as of the date of filing the petition and including the names of all executives, managers, 
supervisors and employees within each department or subdivision; a list of all employees under the 
beneficiary's supervision by name and job title; a brief description of job duties and educational level for all 
employees under the beneficiary's supervision; and California Forms DE-6, Employer's Quarterly Wage 
Report, for 2003 and the first quarter of 2004. 
On August 16, 2004, the petitioner provided its response including an organizational chart for the time period 
beginning April 1,2003 through September 30, 2003. The chart listed the beneficiary as president, a software 
manager, a localization engineer, and a vacant sales manager position. The petitioner noted that: the software 
manager evaluated customer's software programs and converted the software into other languages; the 
localization engineer performed linguistic translation, proofreading, editing, and re-writing tasks for the 
software; and, the sales manager contacted potential customers to sell software localization services, 
performed quality assurance, and resolved customer's complaints. The petitioner's California Forms DE-6, 
for the quarter in which the petition was filed, confirmed the employment of the beneficiary and individuals in 
the position of software manager and localization engineer. 
The director observed that the petitioner's job description of the beneficiary's duties re-stated elements listed 
in the definition of executive and managerial capacity. The director determined that without more specific 
information, the record did not establish that the beneficiary performed primarily in a managerial or executive 
capacity. The director also determined that the petitioner's organizational structure required the beneficiary to 
provide primarily operational and administrative services. The director concluded that upon review of the 
totality of the record, the petitioner had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary 
would be relieved from performing primarily non-qualifying duties. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary is an executive. The petitioner provides examples of 
decisions and electronic mail produced by the beneficiary on behalf of the parent company and the petitioner. 
The petitioner indicates that the beneficiary meets with business partners, communicates with the petitioner's 
sales managers, meets with customers, and attends networking conferences. The petitioner notes that it has 
tried to recruit employees and meanwhile uses independent contractors to perform the petitioner's work. 
The petitioner's assertion and documentation is not persuasive. A petitioner must establish eligibility at the 
time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes 
eligible under a new set of facts. Mutter of Kutigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971). When the petition 
Page 5 
was filed, the petitioner employed the beneficiary and two subordinate employees.' At that time, the 
beneficiary was required to perform the operational task of selling the petitioner's services. The 
documentation provided by the petitioner on appeal, shows that many of the decisions made by the 
beneficiary concerned the sale of the petitioner's services to other organizations. An employee who primarily 
performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not considered to be employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity. Mutter of Church Scientology Internationul, 19 I&N Dec. 593,604 (Comm. 
1988). 
Moreover, the petitioner's general description of the beneficiary's duties suggests that the beneficiary's 
principal duty is to develop the petitioner's business. The actual duties themselves reveal the true nature of 
the employment. Fedin Bros. Go., Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1 103, 1 108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F.2d 41 
(2d. Cir. 1990). The petitioner is in the business of marketing and supporting its Hong Kong parent 
company's software localization and internationalization business. Developing the petitioner's business 
necessarily would include the sale of its services. The petitioner has not provided evidence that it employed 
sufficient salespersons to relieve the beneficiary from providing this non-qualifying task. 
Finally, the definitions of executive and managerial capacity have two parts. First, the petitioner must show 
that the beneficiary performs the high level responsibilities that are specified in the definitions. Second, the 
petitioner must prove that the beneficiary prirnurily performs these specified responsibilities and does not 
spend a majority of his or her time on day-to-day functions. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 
(Table), 1991 WL 144470 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991). The petitioner has not provided evidence to demonstrate 
that the petitioner's organizational structure was sufficiently complex when the petition was filed to relieve 
the beneficiary from performing the petitioner's day-to-day operational tasks. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director failed to consider the petitioner's recruiting efforts and use of 
independent contractors. However, as observed above, the petitioner must establish eligibility when the 
petition was filed. The petitioner's addition of employees or the use of independent contractors subsequent to 
filing the petition is not pertinent to establishing eligibility when the petition was filed. 
On review, the petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary's duties for the 
petitioner comprise primarily executive or managerial duties. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: - The appeal is dismissed. 
1 Although the petitioner does not appear to claim that the beneficiary's position is managerial, even if such a 
claim had been made, the AAO notes that the record does not establish that the subordinate employees are 
supervisory, professional, or managerial. S'ee 5 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. Likewise, the record does not 
demonstrate that the beneficiary manages an essential function, rather than providing the petitioner's 
necessary operational services.