remanded EB-1C Case: Gemstone Trading

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-C- INC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE : AUG . 5, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140 , IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a gemstone trader, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its chief executive 
officer under the fust preference immigrant classification for multinational executives or managers . 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C) . This 
classification allows a U.S. employer to permanently transfer a qualified foreign employee to the United 
States to work in an executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity 
in the United States or that he had been employed in a managerial or executive capacity in his former 
position abroad. 
The Petitioner later filed a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider. The Director granted the 
motion to reopen, but reaffirmed the denial of the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
On appeal , the Petitioner contends that the evidence demonstrates that it is sufficiently complex to 
support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity and emphasizes his supervision of 
subordinate managers. The Petitioner submits similar assertions with respect to the Beneficiary's 
former managerial or executive capacity abroad . 
We will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for the entry of a new decision 
consistent with the following analysis . 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
An immigrant visa is available to a beneficiary who, in the three years preceding the filing of the 
petition, has been employed outside the United States for at least one year in a managerial or executive 
capacity, and seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to render managerial or executive 
services to the same employer or to its subsidiary or affiliate. Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act. 
The Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, must include a statement from an authorized 
official of the petitioning United States employer which demonstrates that the beneficiary has been 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for at least one year in the three years preceding 
Matter of C-C- Inc 
the filing of the petition, that the beneficiary is coming to work in the United States for the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the foreign employer, and that the prospective U.S. employer 
has been doing business for at least one year. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Upon review, we conclude that the Director did not sufficiently consider the evidence submitted by 
the Petitioner on motion or provide adequate analysis as to how this evidence did not demonstrate the 
Beneficiary's managerial or executive capacity in the United States and abroad. For instance, the 
Director listed the evidence submitted by the Petitioner specific to the Beneficiary's asserted foreign 
employment in a managerial or executive capacity, but did not provide analysis of this evidence or 
issue despite reopening the matter. 
Further, with respect to the evidence provided by the Petitioner on motion specific to the Beneficiary's 
claimed managerial or executive capacity in the United States, the Director only pointed to one small 
portion of his duties accounting for 5% of his time and concluded that this represented a material 
change to the petition. Although we acknowledge that the Petitioner made certain changes and 
additions to the Beneficiary's U.S. duty description, the duties provided on motion were fundamentally 
similar to those previously submitted. These asserted duties should have been considered in their 
entirety and compared to those previously provided and analyzed along with the totality of the 
evidence. For example, after reopening the matter, the Director should have provided a fuller analysis 
of the Petitioner's asserted staffing and the other additional evidence provided on motion. In addition, 
as we noted, the Director did not provide analysis specific to the Beneficiary's asserted managerial or 
executive capacity abroad, despite reopening the matter. 
We note that beyond the required description of a beneficiary's U.S. and foreign job duties, we review 
the totality of the evidence when examining the claimed managerial capacity of a beneficiary in the 
United States and abroad, including a petitioner's and foreign employer's organizational structure, the 
duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees in the United States and abroad, the presence of other 
employees to relieve a beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the foreign 
employer and petitioner business, and any other factors that will contribute to understanding a 
beneficiary's actual duties and role in the United States and abroad. Accordingly, the Director's 
analysis when entering a new decision respective to each aforementioned issue should focus on the 
Beneficiary's U.S. and foreign duties as well as the Petitioner and foreign employer's business 
activities and staffing levels, respectively. 
However, we note that the record as currently constituted does not sufficiently demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary would act in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States or that he acted in 
this capacity abroad. Despite submitting lengthy duty descriptions for the Beneficiary in both his 
capacity in the United States and abroad, these descriptions include few credible details of his actual 
qualifying activities. The Petitioner also submitted little supporting documentation to substantiate that 
the Beneficiary would primarily act in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States or that 
he acted in this capacity abroad. This lack of detail and supporting evidence is particularly 
questionable given that the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary acted in each of these roles for several 
years. Likewise, we did not find the duties of the Beneficiary's claimed managerial subordinates in 
2 
Matter of C-C- Inc 
the United States and abroad to be sufficiently detailed and credible, and there was insufficient 
supporting documentation to corroborate that the Beneficiary would supervise and delegate to 
managerial subordinates in the United States or that he also primarily did so in his former capacity 
abroad. 
III. CONCLUSION 
On remand, taking into account the totality of the evidence including the evidence submitted on 
motion, the Director should consider whether the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity in the United States and whether he was employed in a managerial or executive 
capacity in his former position abroad. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director dated November 19, 2018 is withdrawn. The matter is 
remanded for the entry of a new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
Cite as Matter ofC-C-Inc, ID# 4686350 (AAO Aug. 5, 2019) 
3