remanded EB-1C Case: Finance

(b)(6)
DATE: MAR 1 6 2015 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U,S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Service 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave .. N.W .. MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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. § ll53(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. 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. 
Thank you, 
/j;kenb€rg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www. uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the preference visa petition The matter is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The matter will be remanded for further 
consideration. 
The petitioner is an investment firm that was incorporated in the State of Delaware in It seeks to hire 
the beneficiary in the position of financial 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)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. In a decision 
dated June 14, 2014, the director determined that the petitioner failed. to establish that it has the ability to pay 
the beneficiary's proffered wage and denied the petition on the basis of that conclusion. 
On appeal, the petitioner disputes the director's conclusion and provides additional evidence. After reviewing 
the record in its entirety, we find that the petitioner has overcome the director's sole ground for denial. 
Therefore, the director's decision denying the petition on the basis of failure to establish the ability to pay is 
hereby withdrawn. 
Notwithstanding the petitioner's success in overcoming the director's decision, the record indicates that the 
petitioner may be ineligible for the immigration benefit sought herein on the basis of other grounds that were 
not addressed by the director either in his request for evidence (RFE) or in the denial itself. Namely, we find 
that the record fails to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad or that she would be employed in 
the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
Turning first to the beneficiary's proposed employment in the position of financial analyst, we look to the 
petitioner's supporting statement, dated February 10, 2014, which includes a job description and percentage 
breakdown showing how the beneficiary would allocate her time among her various responsibilities. In 
reviewing the seven elements that comprise the beneficiary's proposed position as well as the respective time 
allocations assigned to each element, we cannot conclude that the beneficiary would spend her time primarily 
performing tasks of a qualifying managerial or executive nature. We note that merely establishing that the 
beneficiary performs tasks at a professional level is not sufficient unless those tasks rise to the level of 
managerial or executive capacity. 
Further, while the petitioner named the three employees whom the beneficiary would supervise, the 
beneficiary's job description does not allocate any time to employee supervision, thus resulting in what 
appears to be an inconsistency between the beneficiary's job description and the assertions following the job 
description -both contained within the same supporting statement. 
Lastly, we observe that the first page of the petitioner's supporting statement indicates that the beneficiary is 
being "temporarily transferred" to work for the U.S. entity for two years. This claim is problematic for two 
reasons. First, the claim that the beneficiary's transfer is only temporary is at odds with the purpose of this 
employment-based immigrant petition, which is to permanently, rather than temporarily, transfer the 
beneficiary to work in the United States in the proposed position. Second, the claim is inconsistent with 
information provided at Part 6, No. 6 of the Form I-140, which indicates that the proposed position is 
permanent. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent 
objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the 
petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 
582,591-92 (BIA 1988). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
Next, turning to the beneficiary's employment abroad, we find that the beneficiary's position with the foreign 
entity is described in broad terms and includes no specific job duties or clarifying statements explaining how 
the beneficiary was able to meet her broadly stated job responsibilities. A detailed description of actual daily 
job duties is crucial, as the duties themselves reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. 
v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E. D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Accordingly, this matter will be remanded for a new decision, which shall take proper notice of the 
beneficiary's duties and the duties of his subordinates. The director may issue a notice requesting any 
additional evidence consistent with deficiencies discussed above and any other evidence he deems necessary 
to determine the petitioner's eligibility for the immigration benefit sought herein. 
ORDER: The decision of the director dated June 14, 2014 is hereby 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.