remanded EB-1C Case: Management

(b)(6)
DATE: FEB 0 4 2014 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citi ze nship a nd Imm igration Services 
Administr ative 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. § 1153(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. 
Thank you, 
Ron Rosenberg 
( 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 petitioner 
appealed the denial to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) and, on May 23, 2013, the AAO dismissed 
the appeal. The petitioner filed a motion to reopen. On August 22, 2013, the AAO dismissed the motion. 
The matter is now before the AAO on a motion to reconsider. The AAO will remand the matter to the 
director for further action. 
The petitioner is a New Jersey corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its president. Accordingly, 
the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C) . 
The director originally denied the petition after concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. In denying the petition, the director 
found that the petitioner did not present sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary had subordinates to 
carry out non-managerial duties associated with the company's day-to-day operations. The director found that the 
beneficiary's actual time devoted to non-qualifying functions would exceed that which is spent on managerial or 
executive duties for the U.S. company. See sec. 101(a)(44) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44). 
The petitioner filed the instant motion to reconsider the AAO's decision of August 22, 2013, asserting that the 
decision was based on an incorrect application of Jaw or policy. On motion, the petitioner claims that the 
director "failed to meet its burden without performing an analysis of any of the evidence presented." Citing to 
Matter ofO-S-G, 24 I&N Dec. 56 (BIA 2006), the petitioner challenges the AAO 's ultimate decision based upon 
the previously established factual record. 
At this time, the AAO may not reach the merits of this case because the record is not complete . Specifically, 
the record does not contain a copy of the director's request for evidence (RFE), dated March 22, 2012. Nor 
does the record contain the petitioner's response to the RFE, which the director acknolwedges receiving on 
June 15, 2012. It is the responsibility of the director to ensure that the record is complete and contains all 
evidence that has been submitted by the petitioner or considered by USCIS in reaching its decision. See 8 
C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(1); cf Matter of Gibson, 16 I&N Dec. 58, 59 (BIA 1976). 
Accordingly, the AAO will withhold any comment on the merits of this petition and will remand this matter 
for the inclusion of the missing evidence. Upon remand, the petitioner should have the opportunity to 
supplement the record. Once the record of proceeding is made complete, the director shall return the record 
to the AAO for adjudication. 
The burden of proof remains with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 
26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). The AAO intimates no preference, based upon this incomplete record, as 
to the eventual decision and acknowledges the director's concerns regarding the sufficiency of the evidence. 
ORDER: The petition is remanded to the director for further consideration consistent with the 
foregoing opinion .