remanded EB-1C Case: Business

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
O Officeof AdministrativeAppealsMS2090
I e Washington,DC 20529-2090
preventclearlyunwarrantedinvasionofpersonalprivac) U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
PUBLIC COPY Services
FILE: Office: NEBRASKASERVICECENTER Date: DEC30 2010
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien WorkerasaMultinationalExecutiveor ManagerPursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Thisisthedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOfficein yourcase.All documentshavebeenreturnedto
theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Any furtherinquirymustbemadetothatoffice.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION:The preferencevisa petitionwasdeniedby the Director,NebraskaServiceCenter. The
matteris nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) onappeal.Thematterwill beremandedfor
furtherconsideration.
Thepetitioneris aMissouricorporationthatseeksto hirethebeneficiaryasits vicepresident.Accordingly,
the petitionerendeavorsto classifythe beneficiaryasan employment-basedimmigrantpursuantto section
203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ ]153(b)(1)(C),asa multinational
executiveormanager.
OnMay27,2009,thedirectorissuedadecisiondenyingthepetitiononthebasisthatthepetitionerfailedto
establishthat it hasa qualifyingrelationshipwith the beneficiary'sforeignemployer. In the analysisthat
precededtheadverseconclusionthedirectornotedthatthepetitionermakesnoclaimto bepartof a 50-50
joint ventureanddoesnotindicatethatit is controlledbytheforeignentity.
Afterthoroughlyreviewingtherecord,theAAO findsthatthedirector'sconclusionwaserroneous.TheAAO
basesits conclusionprimarilyona stockpurchaseagreementthatwassubmittedin responseto a requestfor
evidencethat the directorissuedon January29, 2009. Specifically,the documenttitled "Saleof Stock
Agreement,"whichwaswrittenandexecutedonNovember9, 2004,identifiesthepetitionerasthesellerand
the beneficiary'sforeignemployeras the buyerof two thousandsharesof the petitioner'soriginal issue
commonstock. Thedocumentacknowledgesthepetitioner'sprior issueof twothousandsharesof stockand
indicatesthat the additionalsharesissuedto the foreignentity would thus give the foreignentity 50%
ownershipof thepetitioner.Thepetitioneralsosubmittedthetwooriginalstockcertificatesthatwereissued,
giving each,onethousandsharesof thepetitioner'sstock,aswell as
stockcertificateno.3 issuedto thebeneficiary'sforeignemployer,givingthatentity
twothousandshares,or 50%,of thepetitioner'sstock.
In summary,the abovedocumentationestablishesthatthe petitionerfits the definitionof subsidiary,with
beingthe foreignparententity,andthat a qualifyingrelationshipexistsbetweenthe two
entities,thus indicatingthat the petitionermeetsthe criteria outlined at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(C).
Accordingly, the AAO hereby withdraws the director's conclusion with the regard to the sole basis for denial.
Notwithstanding the director's error with regard to the petitioner's qualifying relationship with the
beneficiary'sforeign employer,the AAO finds that the instantpetition may not warrant approval.
First,theAAO turnsto anadditionaladversecommentthatthedirectormadeattheendof thedecision,but
chosenotto includeasa groundfor denial. Specifically,thedirectorquestionedwhetheror nottheforeign
entitythatpreviouslyemployedthebeneficiarycontinuesto existandwhethersuchentityis activelydoing
business,which is definedat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(2)as"theregular,systematic,andcontinuousprovisionof
goodsand/orservicesbyafirm,corporation,orotherentityanddoesnotincludethemerepresenceof anagentor
office." Althoughthepetitioneraddressedthedirector'sadversecommenton appeal,claimingthattheforeign
entityis viableandcontinuesto do business,theonlyevidencesubmittedin supportof thisclaimincludesthe
foreignentity'stax returnsfor 2009anda bankletterdatedJune5, 2009identifyingtheforeignentityasa
customerof the TheAAO findsthattax documentsdo not showthefrequencyof
theforeignentity'ssalestransactionsandthereforecannotberelieduponto determinewhetherthatentityis
conductingbusinessona "regular,systematic,andcontinuous"basis.Seeid.
Page3
Second,the AAO findsthat the petitionerdid not provideadequateinformationregardingthe beneficiary's
foreign employmentand thus failed to establishthat it meetsthe provisionsdiscussedat 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(j)(3)(i)(B),whichstatesthatthepetitionermustestablishthatthebeneficiarywasemployedabroadin
a qualifyingmanagerialor executivepositionfor at leastoneout of thethreeyearspriorto his entryto the
UnitedStatesasanonimmigrantto workforthesameemployer.
Third,while thepetitionerprovideda descriptionof thebeneficiary'sproposedemployment,theAAO finds
thatjob descriptionlacksspecificinformationaboutthe beneficiary'sproposeddaily job dutiesandthe
amountor percentageof time that would be allocatedto suchjob duties. The regulationat 8 C.F.R.§
204.5(j)(5)requiresthe petitionerto providea detaileddescriptionof the beneficiary'sdaily job duties.
Recitingthebeneficiary'svaguejob responsibilitiesorbroadly-castbusinessobjectivesisnotsufficient,asthe
actualdutiesthemselveswill revealthetruenatureof theemployment.FedinBros.Co.,Ltd.v. Sava,724F.
Supp.1103,1108(E.D.N.Y.1989),affd, 905F.2d41 (2d.Cir. 1990). In thepresentmatter,thestatements
offeredto describethe beneficiary'sproposedemploymentlackthe requisitedetailaboutthe beneficiary's
dailytasksandthusfail to establishthatthebeneficiarywouldprimarilyperformmanagerial-or executive-
leveltasks.
Accordingly,theAAO herebyremandsthis matterbackto the servicecentersothatthe directorcanhavethe
opportunityto furtherexploretheabove-citeddeficienciesanddeterminewhetherthe instantpetitionwarrants
favorable action. The director may chooseto issuea requestfor additional evidence at his discretion. See
8C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(8).
ORDER: The decisionof the directordatedMay 27, 2009 is withdrawn. The matteris
remandedfor furtheractionandconsiderationconsistentwith the abovediscussion
andentry of anew decision.