remanded
EB-1C
remanded EB-1C Case: Management
Decision Summary
The director's decision was withdrawn because the AAO found that a qualifying relationship did exist between the U.S. and foreign entities, contrary to the director's finding. However, the case was remanded for a new decision because the petitioner had not provided a sufficiently detailed description of the beneficiary's proposed day-to-day duties to establish that the role was primarily managerial or executive in nature.
Criteria Discussed
Qualifying Relationship Managerial Or Executive Capacity Organizational Hierarchy Staffing Levels
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
identifyingdatadeletedto preventclearly unwarranted invasionofpersonalprivacy PUBLICCOPV U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity U. S.Citizenshipand1mmigrationServices AdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) 20 MassachusettsAve.N.W., MS 2090 washington,DC 20529-2090 8 U.S.Citizenship and Immigration Services DATE: 20Í2 OFFICE:TEXASSERVICECENTER IN RE: Petitioner: Beneficiary: PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionforAlienWorkerasaMultinationalExecutiveorManagerPursuantto Section203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C) ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER: INSTRUCTIONS: Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase.All of thedocuments relatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat anyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice. If you believethe law wasinappropriatelyappliedby us in reachingour decision,or you haveadditional informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopenin accordancewith the instructionson FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion, with a feeof $630. The specificrequirementsfor filing sucha requestcanbe foundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.Do not file any motion directlywith theAAO. Pleasebeawarethat8C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthatanymotionmustbefiled within30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseekstoreconsiderorreopen. Thankyou, PerryRhew Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice www.uscis.gov Page2 DISCUSSION:Thepreferencevisapetitionwasdeniedby theDirector,TexasServiceCenter.Thematteris nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO) on appeal.Thematterwill beremandedfor further consideration. Thepetitioneris aTexascorporationthatseeksto employthebeneficiaryin thepositionof generalmanager. Accordingly,thepetitionerendeavorsto classifythebeneficiaryasanemployment-basedimmigrantpursuant to section203(b)(1)(C)of the ImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ ll53(b)(1)(C), asa multinationalexecutiveormanager. In reviewingtheevidenceonrecord,thedirectorobservedthatthebeneficiary'sforeignandU.S.employers arenot ownedby the exactsamegroupof individualsandthatasa resultthe two entitiesdo not havea qualifyingrelationship. The directorthereforeissueda decisiondatedSeptember30, 2010denyingthe petition. Onappeal,counseldisputesthedirector'sdecision,contendingthatthesameindividualisthemajorityowner of bothentities,thusindicatingthatthepetitioneris anaffiliateof thebeneficiary'sforeignemployer. TheAAO hasconductedathoroughreviewof therecordandfindsthatcounsel'sstatementsaresupportedby thedocumentaryevidenceonrecord.Therefore,thedirector'sdecisionis basedonanerroneouslegalfinding andmustbe,andherebyis,withdrawn. Notwithstandingthe withdrawalof the director'sdecision,the AAO finds that the petitionerhas not establishedeligibility for theimmigrationbenefitsought.TheAAO basesthis findingon its reviewof the deficientjob descriptionthepetitionerprovidedin its discussionsof thebeneficiary'sproposedemployment andits lack of a detailedaccountof thebeneficiary'sproposedday-to-dayjob duties. Publishedcaselaw clearlysupportsthepivotalroleof aclearlydefinedjob description,astheactualdutiesthemselvesrevealthe truenatureof theemployment.FedinBros.Co.,Ltd.v.Sava,724F. Supp.1103,1108(E.D.N.Y.1989),affd, 905F.2d41 (2d.Cir. 1990);seealso8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(5).Merelyparaphrasingthestatutorydefinitions andfocusingonthebeneficiary'spolicymakingrole,elevatedpositionwithinthepetitioner'sorganizational hierarchy, or her discretionaryauthority is not sufficient without a detailedaccountof the beneficiary's actual daily tasks. Failing to adequately describe the proposed employment precludes U.S. Citizenship and ImmigrationServicesfrom beingableto determinewhethertheU.S.positionwouldbewithin a managerialor executivecapacity. Additionally,it is appropriateandoftennecessaryto considerotherrelevantfactors,suchas an entity's organizationalhierarchy,whichshowsthecomplexityof a givenentityandthebeneficiary'splacementin relationto otheremployees,aswell asanentity'soverallstaffing,whichallowsUSCIStoassesstheextentto whichthepetitioneris or wasableto relievethebeneficiaryfromhavingto focustheprimaryportionof her timeontheperformanceof non-qualifyingoperationaltasks. Accordingly,the casewill be remandedfor a new decision,which shall take into considerationthe beneficiary'sjob dutiesin herproposedposition. Thedirectormayissuea noticerequestinganyadditional evidencehedeemsnecessaryin ordertodeterminethepetitioner'seligibilityfor thebenefitsought. Page3 ORDER: Thedecisionof thedirectordatedSeptember30,2010is withdrawn.Thematteris remandedfor furtheractionandconsiderationconsistentwith theabovediscussion andentryof a newdecision,which,if adverseto thepetitioner,shallbecertifiedto theAAO forreview.
Draft your EB-1C petition with AAO precedents
MeritDraft uses real AAO decisions to generate compliant petition arguments tailored to your evidence.
Sign Up Free →No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.