remanded EB-1C Case: Automotive

identifying, data deleted to 
Prevent clear!) 4: warrsn&ed 
invasion of personal pn vacy 
US. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Offe of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
MAR 1 6 f Qifi 
SRC 08 014 57333 
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. 3 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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reopen or reconsider, as required by 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
U 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The preference immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will remand the 
matter for further consideration. 
The petitioner is a Florida corporation engaged in the import, export, and distribution of automobiles. It seeks 
to employ the beneficiary as its chief financial officer. 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. $ 1 153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
The director denied the petition on the basis of two independent grounds of ineligibility: 1) the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence to establish that it had been doing business in the time and manner 
prescribed at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.56)(3)(i)(D); and 2) the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to 
establish that it had secured business premises to house its business operation. 
On appeal, the petitioner has provided additional evidence in the form of one year's worth of shipping 
documents and bills of lading as well as additional photographs of the petitioner's business premises. The 
AAO finds that such documentation is sufficient to overcome both of the grounds cited as the bases for 
denial. 
Nevertheless, the AAO finds that the petition in the present matter does not warrant approval. This finding is 
based on two independent grounds of ineligibility that had not been previously addressed in the director's 
decision: I) the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity; and 2) the petitioner failed to establish that it would employ the beneficiary 
in a managerial or executive capacity. 
In reviewing the petitioner's response to the director's request for additional evidence (RFE), which was 
issued on December 2, 2008, the AAO takes note of the description of the beneficiary's employment with the 
foreign entity and his prospective employment with the U.S. petitioner.1 It is noted that the description of the 
beneficiary's employment and accompanying percentage breakdown indicate that the primary portion of the 
beneficiary's time has been and would be spent performing daily operational tasks rather than tasks within a 
qualifying managerial or executive capacity as claimed. More specifically, the beneficiary has been tasked 
with filing statutory reports, performing financial and inventory auditing, reporting the financial information 
to a board of directors, carrying out the payroll function, and providing support to the sales team, tasks which 
cumulatively consume 50% of the beneficiary's time. It cannot be concluded that these are the tasks of 
someone employed within a managerial or executive capacity as defined by sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of 
the Act. Rather, they are daily operational tasks necessary to provide a service. It is noted that an employee 
who "primarily" performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not considered to 
be "primarily" employed in a managerial or executive capacity. See sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act 
(requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial or executive duties); see also Matter of 
Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593,604 (Comm. 1988). 
' Although the petitioner did not provide a separate job description for the beneficiary's foreign employment, the AAO 
takes note of an email the beneficiary sent to the petitioner's counsel in which the beneficiary stated that the New 
Zealand office where he was previously employed "is nearly identical" to the office of the prospective U.S. employer, 
thus implying that the job duties he performed abroad mirror those he would perform in his employment for the 
petitioning entity. 
Accordingly, the matter will be remanded to the director for a new decision, which shall examine the 
beneficiary's job duties with the foreign and petitioning entities. The director may issue a notice requesting 
any additional evidence he deems necessary in order to determine the petitioner's eligibility for the benefit 
sought. 
ORDER: The decision of the director dated January 29, 2009 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 to the petitioner, shall be certified to 
the AAO for review.