remanded EB-1C Case: Agricultural Import/Export

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 04 009 52714 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: F 0 f 2006 
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. 8 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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 office. 
/ 
/;. 
/- -/)...-- C----- ------ 
FZn%ec tor 
dministrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 009 527 14 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service Center. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The matter will be remanded for 
further consideration. 
The petitioner was established in California in March of 1995 as a branch office. The petitioner imports 
grains and roughage products from the United States to Japan and seeks to employ the beneficiary as its 
general manager. 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. 
8 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
On March 23, 2005, the director issued a notice denying the petition. Specifically, the director took note of 
the petitioner's Forms 1120-F for the 2002 and 2003 tax year and determined that the forms provide no 
information regarding income the petitioner may have earned. The director concluded that the petitioner 
failed to establish that it had been doing business in the United States or that it had been paying the 
beneficiary's salary. 
However, none of the documentation requested in the request for evidence (RFE) dated September 16, 2004 
would have enabled the director to gauge whether the petitioner was engaged in "the regular, systematic, and 
continuous provision of goods andlor services" for one year prior to filing the Form 1-140 as required by 8 C.F.R. 
8 204.5(j)(3)(i)(D). See 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(j)(2). As the petitioner is a branch, not a subsidiary, of a foreign entity 
and files its tax returns abroad, the petitioner's state and federal tax return can provide a very limited overview of 
the petitioner's financial status during the relevant time period. Furthermore, the petitioner has indicated that it is 
an import-based business. Therefore, the most accurate indicators of the petitioner's doing business would be 
invoices showing purchases made by the petitioner from U.S. suppliers, as well as bills of lading, customs forms, 
and any other shipping documents that indicate consistent export activity out of the United States. None of this 
relevant documentation was requested in the Request for Evidence. Accordingly, the director is hereby instructed 
to request such documentation, which will assist Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) in determining 
whether the petitioner had been doing business during the relevant time period. 
Although the petitioner submitted a number of documents regarding transactions that took place after the petition 
was filed, 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. Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N 
Dec. 45, 49 (Comrn. 1971). Therefore, the director is instructed to caution the petitioner as to the specific 
time period in question and to instruct the petitioner to submit documentation specifically related to that 
relevant period, i.e., the one-year period prior to the filing of the petition. 
Additionally, the director determined that the petitioner failed to establish its ability to pay the beneficiary's 
proffered wage, which, according to Part 6, Item 9 of the Form 1-140, is $1 19,914 per year. However, there is 
no indication that the director considered the beneficiary's 2003 W-2 wage statement, which was submitted as 
part of the petitioner's response to the director's RFE and shows that the beneficiary's salary was only 1.6% 
below the beneficiary's significant proffered wage. 
The director also failed to address the lack of sufficient information regarding the beneficiary's past and 
proposed job duties. Although the petitioner provided broad descriptions for the beneficiary's duties in the 
United States and abroad, those descriptions fail to specify any of the beneficiary's daily duties. It is noted 
that the actual duties themselves reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Suva, 724 
WAC 04 009 527 14 
Page 3 
F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). The director shall instruct the 
petitioner to do more than merely recite the beneficiary's vague job responsibilities. The regulations require a 
detailed description of the beneficiary's daily job duties. See 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(j)(5). Thus, the petitioner must 
provide a specific list of actual duties that the beneficiary performed abroad and would perform in the United 
States under an approved petition and to indicate the amount of time devoted to each of the listed duties. 
Finally, the director erroneously cited 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(E), a requirement that applies to 1-129 
nonimmigrant petitions. The petitioner in the instant matter filed a Form 1-140 immigrant petition seeking to 
employ the beneficiary in the United States on a permanent basis. As such, the director's reference to a 
requirement specifically concerning nonimmigrant petitions is inappropriate and irrelevant. 
The director is instructed to issue a request for evidence addressing the issues discussed above in an effort to 
establish the petitioner's eligibility to classify the beneficiary as a multinational manager or executive. 
ORDER: The decision of the director dated March 23, 2005 is withdrawn. The matter is 
remanded for further action and consideration consistent with the above discussion 
and entry of a new decision, which, if adverse, shall be certified to the AAO for 
review.