remanded EB-1C Case: Business Management

Identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarr~nted 
invasion of personal pnva<:y 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: 
JUL 1 3 2012 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529~2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(I)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form J-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(a)(1 )(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
PerryRhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The matter will be remanded for 
further consideration. 
The petitioner is a California corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary in the position of general 
manager. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based 
immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(I)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(1 )(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
In reviewing the evidence on record, the director observed that the beneficiary is a shareholder of the foreign 
parent entity that owns the petitioner. Based on this observation and in reliance on the common law 
definition of the term "employee," the director concluded that the petitioner and the beneficiary do not have 
an employer-employee relationship. The director therefore issued a decision dated June 25, 201 0 denying the 
petition. 
On appeal, counsel disputes the director's decision, contending that the facts in the record do not support the 
director's decision. Counsel urges the AAO to review the record, claiming that the beneficiary has no 
ownership interest in the foreign entity, but rather that she was employed by the foreign entity in the position 
of senior Counsel asserts that the foreign entity has two shareholders: a corporate entity by the 
name and a private individual other than the beneficiary. 
After a thorough review of the record, the AAO finds that counsel's statements are supported by the 
documentary evidence on record. The director's decision is based on an erroneous conclusion of fact and 
must be, and hereby is, withdrawn. 
Notwithstanding the withdrawal of the director's decision, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not 
established eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. The AAO bases this finding on its review of the 
deficient job descriptions the petitioner provided in its discussions of the beneficiary's foreign and proposed 
employment. Despite the petitioner's compliance with the director's instructions to provide a percentage 
breakdown accompanying each job description, the AAO finds that the information provided lacked adequate 
detail specifying the beneficiary'S actual day-to-day job duties in each of her positions. Published case law 
clearly supports the pivotal role of a clearly defined job description, as the actual duties themselves reveal the 
true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (ED.N.Y. 1989), ajj'd, 
905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5). Merely paraphrasing the statutory definitions 
and focusing on the beneficiary's policy making role, elevated position within the organizational hierarchy, or 
her discretionary authority is not sufficient without a detailed account of the beneficiary's actual daily tasks. 
Failing to adequately describe the foreign and proposed employment precludes u.s. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services from being able to determine whether the positions in question are within a managerial 
or executive capacity. 
It is appropriate and often necessary to consider other relevant factors, such as an entity's organizational 
hierarchy, which shows the complexity of a given entity and the beneficiary's placement in relation to other 
employees, as well as an entity's overall staffing, which allows uscrs to assess the extent to which the 
petitioner andlor the foreign entity is or was able to relieve the beneficiary from having to focus the primary 
portion of her time on the performance of non-qualifying operational tasks. 
Page 3 
Accordingly, the case will be remanded for a new decision, which shall take into consideration the 
beneficiary's job duties in her foreign and proposed positions. 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 June 25, 2010 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.