dismissed EB-1C Case: Wholesale

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
identifying data deleted to AdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)
reventclearlyunwarranted 20MassachusettsAve.,N.W.,MS2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
invasionof personalprivacy U.S.Citizenship
PUBLICCOPY andImmigration
services
DATE: AUG 1 0 2012 OFFICE:NEBRASKASERVICECENTER
IN RE: Petition r
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor AlienWorkerasaMultinationalExecutiveorManagerPursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in your case. All of the documents
relatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If youbelievetheAAO inappropriatelyappliedthe law in reachingits decision,or youhaveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopenin
accordancewiththeinstructionsonFormI-290B,Noticeof AppealorMotion,with a feeof $630.Thespecific
requirementsfor filing sucha motioncanbefoundat 8C.F.R.§ 103.5.Do not file anymotiondirectly with
theAAO. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto befiledwithin 30daysof the
decisionthatthemotionseekstoreconsiderorreopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscas.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: Thepreferencevisapetitionwasdeniedby the Director,NebraskaServiceCenter.
Thematteris now beforethe AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO) on appeal. The appealwill be
dismissed.
Thepetitioneris aCaliforniacompanyengagedin thewholesaleof shoes,which seeksto employthe
beneficiaryas its Chief ExecutiveOfficer. Accordingly,the petitionerendeavorsto classifythe
beneficiaryasanemployment-basedimmigrantpursuantto section203(b)(1)(C)of the Immigration
andNationalityAct (theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C),asamultinationalexecutiveor manager.
OnNovember19,2010,the directordeniedthepetitionconcludingthe following: (1) thepetitioner
failedto establishthatthebeneficiary'sproposedemploymentwith theU.S.entitywouldbewithin a
qualifying managerialor executivecapacity;and (2) the petitioner failed to establishthat the
beneficiary'semploymentabroadwaswithin aqualifyingmanagerialor executivecapacity.
On appeal,counseldisputesthe director's findings andprovidesan appellatebrief laying out the
groundsfor challengingthedenial. Counselsubmitsabrief andadditionalevidencein supportof the
appeal.
Section203(b)of theAct statesin pertinentpart:
(1) PriorityWorkers.-- Visasshallfirst bemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrants
whoarealiensdescribedin anyof thefollowing subparagraphs(A) through(C):
* * *
(C) CertainMultinationalExecutivesand Managers.-- An alien is
describedin this subparagraphif the alien, in the 3 years
precedingthetimeof thealien'sapplicationfor classificationand
admissioninto the United Statesunderthis subparagraph,has
been employed for at least 1 year by a firm or corporationor
other legal entity or an affiliate or subsidiarythereof and who
seeksto enter the United Statesin order to continueto render
services to the same employer or to a subsidiary or affiliate
thereofin a capacitythat is managerialor executive.
Thelanguageof thestatuteis specificin limiting thisprovisionto onlythoseexecutivesandmanagers
whohavepreviouslyworkedfor thefirm, corporationor otherlegalentity,or anaffiliateor subsidiary
of that entity, andare comingto the United Statesto work for the sameentity, or its affiliate or
subsidiary.
A UnitedStatesemployermayfile apetitiononFormI-140forclassificationof analienundersection
203(b)(1)(C)of theAct asamultinationalexecutiveor manager.No laborcertificationisrequiredfor
thisclassification.Theprospectiveemployerin theUnitedStatesmustfurnishajob offer in the form
Page3
of a statementthat indicatesthatthe alienis to be employedin the United Statesin a managerialor
executivecapacity. Sucha statementmustclearlydescribethe dutiesto beperformedby the alien.
See8 C.F.R.§204.5(j)(5).
The first issuein this proceedingis whetherthe petitionersubmittedsufficientevidenceto establish
that it would employthe beneficiaryin the United Statesin a qualifying managerialor executive
capacity.
Section101(a)(44)(A)of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(44)(A),provides:
Theterm"managerialcapacity"meansanassignmentwithin anorganizationin which the
employeeprimarily-
(i) managesthe organization,or a department,subdivision,function,or
componentof theorganization;
(ii) supervisesandcontrolsthe work of othersupervisory,professional,or
managerialemployees,or managesan essentialfunction within the
organization,or adepartmentor subdivisionof theorganization;
(iii) if anotheremployeeor otheremployeesaredirectly supervised,hasthe
authorityto hireandfire or recommendthoseaswell asotherpersonnel
actions(such as promotion and leave authorization),or if no other
employeeis directly supervised,functionsat a seniorlevel within the
organizationalhierarchyor with respectto thefunctionmanaged;and
(iv) exercisesdiscretionover the day-to-dayoperationsof the activity or
functionfor whichtheemployeehasauthority. A first-linesupervisoris
not consideredto beactingin a managerialcapacitymerelyby virtueof
the supervisor'ssupervisorydutiesunlessthe employeessupervisedare
professional.
Section101(a)(44)(B)of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(44)(B),provides:
The term "executivecapacity" meansan assignmentwithin an organizationin which the
employeeprimarily-
(i) directsthe managementof the organizationor a major componentor
functionof theorganization;
(ii) establishesthe goalsand policiesof the organization,component,or
function;
Page4
(iii) exerciseswidelatitudein discretionarydecision-making;and
(iv) receivesonly general supervisionor direction from higher level
executives,theboardof directors,or stockholdersof theorganization.
In examiningthe executiveor managerialcapacityof the beneficiary,USCIS will look first to the
petitioner'sdescriptionof the job duties. See8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5). Publishedcaselaw clearly
supportsthepivotalroleof a clearlydef'medjob description,astheactualdutiesthemselvesrevealthe
true natureof the employment.FedinBros. Co.,Ltd. v. Sava,724 F. Supp.1103,1108(E.D.N.Y.
1989),affd, 905F.2d41 (2d.Cir. 1990);seealso8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(5). USCISreviewsthetotality
of therecord,whichincludesnot onlythebeneficiary'sjob description,but alsotakesintoaccountthe
natureof thepetitioner'sbusiness,theemploymentandremunerationof employees,aswell asthejob
descriptionsof the beneficiary'ssubordinates,if any,andanyotherfactscontributingto a complete
understandingof abeneficiary'sactualrolewithin agivenentity.
An analysisof the recorddoesnot leadto an affirmativeconclusionthat the beneficiarywould be
employedin theUnitedStatesin aqualifyingmanagerialor executivecapacity.
The petitionerdid not providea list of job dutiesto be performedby the beneficiaryin the initial
petitionandthus,thedirectorrequestedadditionalinformationin supportof thepetition. In response
to thedirector'srequestfor evidence,thepetitionerprovidedthefollowingdescriptionof thedutiesto
beperformedby thebeneficiary:
[Thebeneficiary's]daily dutiesincludesalign the company,internallyandexternally,
with the company'sstrategicvision in marketing,financesandaccountingandother
incidentalsin additionto day to day operations. Besidescommunicatingwith the
foreignentity in China,[thebeneficiary]spendsmostof histime workingcloselywith
hisSalesRepresentativesonpromotionsandorders.
Thepetitioneralsoprovidedanorganizationalchartthat indicatedthebeneficiaryasCEO,who in turn
supervisesanoperator,two outsidesalesrepresentatives,andanassistant.On appeal,thepetitioner
explainedthat it employsonly two individuals,including thebeneficiary.
On appeal,the petitionerprovided additional information aboutthejob dutiesto be performedby the
beneficiary.Uponreviewof thejob descriptionsubmittedin responseto therequestfor evidenceand
on appeal,thepetitionerprovideda vagueandnonspecificdescriptionof thebeneficiary'sdutiesthat
fails to demonstratewhatthebeneficiarywill do on a day-to-daybasis. For example,the petitioner
statedthat the beneficiarywill "align the company,internally and externally,with the company's
strategicvision in marketing,financesandaccountingandotherincidentalsin additionto dayto day
operations";and "developbusinessplan, reducecost/overhead,mereasecustomerbaseandprofits,
arrangeandassigndutiesto employeesandevaluationon salesreports." Recitingthe beneficiary's
vaguejob responsibilitiesor broadly-castbusinessobjectivesis not sufficient;the regulationsrequire
a detaileddescriptionof the beneficiary'sdaily job duties. Thepetitionerhasfailedto provideany
Page5
detailor explanationof thebeneficiary'sactivitiesin thecourseof hisdailyroutine. Theactualduties
themselveswill revealthetruenatureof theemployment.FedinBros.Co.,Ltd. v. Sava,724F. Supp.
at 1108. Thepetitioner'sdescriptionsof thebeneficiary'spositiondo not identifytheactualdutiesto
be performed,such that they could be classifiedas managerialor executivein nature.The job
descriptionsubmittedby the petitionerprovideslittle insight into the true natureof the tasksthe
beneficiarywill perform.
The job descriptionalso includesseveralnon-qualifyingduties such as the beneficiarywill be
responsiblefor the "quarterreportsto Parentcompanyand alsogive next quarter'sestimatesales
volumeto theparentcompany";"introducenewbusinessmanagementsystemandcomputerprograms
to makebusinessoperationfasterand easierto successfullylower all costs"; "communicatewith
clients,competitorsandthemarketto understandandgetthenewestinformationon Shoesmarketing
in the UnitedStates";"designpromotionon newshoesstylesandshowthemto clients";"takenew
orderto avoidoverloadinginventory";"manageall ordersfromphone,faxandemails";and"schedule
shipping." It appearsthat the beneficiarywill be developingand marketingthe servicesof the
business,handlingall of the salesoperations,negotiatingcontracts,and handlingthe inventory
orderingandshippingprocesses,ratherthandirectingsuchactivitiesthroughsubordinateemployees.
The petitioner did not identify any employeeswho actually assistedthe beneficiaryin fmding
engagements,preparingthe market researchand developingmarketingand promotionprograms,
carrying out the salesoperations,and preparingthe financial reports, thus indicatingthat the
beneficiarywill carryout theseoperationalfunctions,which areoutsidetheparametersof whatwould
be deemedas being within a managerialor executivecapacity. An employeewho "primarily"
performsthe tasksnecessaryto producea productor to provideservicesis not consideredto be
"primarily" employedin amanagerialor executivecapacity.Seesections101(a)(44)(A)and(B) of the
Act (requiringthatone"primarily" performtheenumeratedmanagerialor executiveduties);seealso
Matterof ChurchScientologyIntn 7., 19I&N Dec.at604.
An analysisof the natureof the petitioner'sbusinessunderminesthe petitioner'sassertionthat the
beneficiaryis employedin a managerialor executivecapacity. Onappeal,thepetitionerstatesthatit
employs the beneficiary and one other part-time employeeas receptionist and account manager.
According to the Form 1120,U.S. CorporationIncome Tax Return, for 2009, the secondemployee
only received$10,490.00in wagesasthatemployeeworksonlypart-time. In addition,thepetitioner
stated that it employs sales representativesbut the petitioner failed to provide any evidence to
corroboratethis claim. Thus,it appearsfrom the recordthat the beneficiary,asthe only full-time
employee,may be primarily engagedin performingthe financeoperations,marketing,sales,and
businessdevelopmentactivities, and all of the variousoperationaltasksinherentin operatinga
businesson a daily basis,suchaspayingbills, handlingcustomertransactions,orderingproductsand
runningthe shippingservices,and negotiatingcontracts. Basedon the recordof proceeding,the
beneficiary'sjob dutiesare principally composedof non-qualifyingdutiesthat precludehim from
functioningin aprimarilymanagerialor executivecapacity.
Thebeneficiary'sjob duties,asdescribedby the petitioner,arenot indicativeof anemployeewho is
primarily focusedon the broadgoalsandpoliciesof the organization.Theactualdutiesthemselves
Page6
revealthe true natureof the employment.Fedin Bros. Co.,Ltd. v. Sava,724 F. Supp.1103,1108
(E.D.N.Y. 1989),a[fd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990).The petitionerhas not establishedthat the
beneficiary is primarily engagedin directing and controlling a subordinatestaff comprisedof
professional,managerialor supervisoryemployees,nor has it indicatedthat he is chargedwith
managingan essentialfunctionof the petitioningorganization.Seesection101(a)(44)(A)of the Act.
TheAAO isnot persuadedthatthebeneficiarywouldbeemployedin aprimarilymanagerialcapacity.
Therefore,thepetitioncannotbeapproved.
The directoralsoconcludedthatthe petitionerfailed to providesufficientevidenceto establishthat
the beneficiarywas employedby the foreign companyin a primarily managerialor executive
capacity.
An analysisof therecorddoesnot leadto anaffirmativeconclusionthatthebeneficiarywasemployed
abroadin a qualifying managerialor executivecapacity. With regardto the foreignposition the
petitionerprovideda list of job dutiesperformedby the beneficiarywith a percentagebreakdown
which includedbroadlystatedjob responsibilities.Dueto theoverlygeneralinformationincludedin
thepercentagebreakdown,theAAO is unableto gaina meaningfulunderstandingof how muchtime
thebeneficiaryspentperformingqualifyingtasksversusthosethatwouldbedeemednon-qualifying.
Onreview,thepetitionerprovideda vagueandnonspecificdescriptionof thebeneficiary'sdutiesthat
failsto demonstratewhatthebeneficiarydid on a day-to-daybasis.Thepetitionerstatedthatthelast
positionheldby thebeneficiarywith the foreigncompanywasasVice Presidentof Marketing. In a
letterdatedAugust2,2010thepresidentof theforeigncompanystatedthatthebeneficiary"spends25
hourson salesand 15 hourson ministry of supply. He supervisessalesmanagerandthe supply
managerto develop,advertising,marketing,promotion,packingandquality control." Thepetitioner
also provideda documentfrom the foreign companyentitled: "The Operationof Marketing and
Engineeringof [theforeigncompany]." Thisdocumentprovidesa generaloverviewof themarketing
andengineeringprocessof the foreigncompany;however,it is not clearwhich specificdutieswere
performedby thebeneficiaryandwhich subordinatesweresupervisedby the beneficiary. Goingon
recordwithout supportingdocumentaryevidenceis not sufficient for purposesof meetingthe burden
of proof in theseproceedings.Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165(Comm. 1998)(citing Matter
of TreasureCraft of California, 14I&N Dec. 190(Reg.Comm.1972)).
Thepetitionerprovideda verybrief andvagueexplanationof thebeneficiary'sdutieswith theforeign
company.Recitingthebeneficiary'svaguejob responsibilitiesor broadly-castbusinessobjectivesis
not sufficient;the regulationsrequirea detaileddescriptionof thebeneficiary'sdailyjob duties. The
petitionerhasfailedto provideanydetailor explanationof thebeneficiary'sactivitiesin thecourseof
hisdaily routine. Theactualdutiesthemselveswill revealthetruenatureof theemployment.Fedin
Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava,724 F. Supp.at 1108. The petitioner'sdescriptionsof the beneficiary's
position do not identify the actualduties to be performed,suchthat they could be classifiedas
managerialor executivein nature. Thebeneficiary'spositiondescriptionis too generalandbroadto
establishthatthepreponderanceof hisdutiesis managerialor executivein nature. Again,recitingthe
beneficiary'svaguejob responsibilitiesor broadly-castbusinessobjectivesis not sufficient; the
Page7
regulationsrequirea detaileddescriptionof the beneficiary'sdaily job duties. The petitionerhas
failed to provideany detail or explanationof the beneficiary'sactivitiesin the courseof his daily
routine. Theactualdutiesthemselveswill revealthetruenatureof theemployment.FedinBros.Co.,
Ltd.v.Sava,724F.Supp.1103,1108(E.D.N.Y.1989),affd, 905F.2d41(2d.Cir. 1990).
Thejob descriptionsubmittedby thepetitionerprovideslittle insightinto thetrue natureof thetasks
thebeneficiarywill perform. Furthermore,thepetitionerfailedto provideanorganizationalchartof
theforeigncompanyindicatingthebeneficiary'spositionandhissubordinates.
After reviewing the beneficiary'sjob descriptionwith the foreign entity and consideringthat
informationin light of the foreignentity's organizationalstructureasit specificallypertainedto the
beneficiary'sposition,the AAO cannotconcludethat the primaryportion of the beneficiary'stime
wasspentperformingtaskswithin a qualifyingmanagerialor executivecapacity. In summary,the
petitionerhas failed to providesufficient evidenceto establishthat the beneficiarywas employed
abroadin a qualifying managerialor executivecapacity. For this additionalreason,the petition
cannotbeapproved.
Thepetitionwill bedeniedfor theabovestatedreasons,with eachconsideredasanindependentand
alternativebasisfor denial. In visa petition proceedings,the burdenof proving eligibility for the
benefitsoughtremainsentirelywith thepetitioner. Section291of the Act, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361. The
petitionerhasnot sustainedthatburden.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.