remanded EB-1C Case: Printing And Distribution

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-USA LLC 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 5, 2018 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a printing, binding, sales, and disiribution business, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as its president under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational 
executives or managers. See 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 Texas .Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Beneficiary is 
ineligible for the requested.classification because the Petitioner "did not establish that it satisfied 
each adjudicative element to establish eligibility for the requested benefit." The Director cited to the 
statutory definitions of executive and managerial capacity, but did not explain the specific reasons 
for denial. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred as the decision did not include any discussion 
or analysis to support the adverse finding. The Petitioner re-submits some of its supporting 
documentation and maintains that it established the Beneficiary's eligibility as a multinational 
executive. 
Upon de novo review of the record, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter 
for entry of a new decision. 
l. 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 l-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, must include a statement from an authorized 
otlicial 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 the filing of the petition, that the beneficiary is coming to work in the United States for the 
.
Matter of M- USA LLC 
same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the foreign employer, and that the prospe ctive U.S. 
employer has been doing business for at least one year. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3). 
II. ANALYSIS 
When denying a petition, a director has an affirmative duty to explain the specific rea,sons for the 
denial; this duty includes informing a petitioner why the evidence did not satisfy its burden of proof 
pursuant to section 291 ofthe Act. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Mafter ofM-P-, 20 l&N Dec. 
786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must fully explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow 
the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal) . 
Here, while it appears that the Director intended to deny the petition based on a finding that the 
Petitioner did not establish that it would employ the Beneficiar y in a managerial or executive 
capacity, the Director did not discuss the Petitioner's evidence or the specific deficiencies that led to 
that determination. Further, the Director acknowledged the Petitioner' s submission of only four 
exhibits, when in fact it submitted several volumes of documentation in support of the petition and in 
response to a notice of intent to deny. 
As the Director did not base the decision on a complete review of all of the relevant evidence or 
provide an adequate analysis of that evidence, we will withdraw the decision. 
However , the record as presentl y constituted contains insufficient evidence to show that the 
Beneficiary is eligible for the benefit sought. The job descriptio n that the Petitioner submitted at the 
time of filing , while fairly lengthy, is too broad, and does not sufficiently describe the Beneficiary's 
actual day-to-day tasks within the context of the Petitioner's busine ss. The Petitioner must descr ibe 
the Beneficiary'~ position in sufficient detail to support its claim that his duties will be prima rily 
executive in nature. 
The record also contains an unexplained inconsi stency with respect to the Petitioner' s staffing levels. 
On the Form 1-140 filed in December 2016, the Petitioner stated that it had 22 employees in the 
United States . The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart which shows that the Beneficiary 
oversees the Petitioner and the employees of two related Mexican entities. An accompanying 
employee list identified 22 workers employed by the· U.S. Petitioner, 27 workers employed by 
in Mexico, and 12 employees and consultants working for 
in Mexico. However, the most recent payroll evidence provided (for August 2016 ), indicates 
that the Petiti oner had only five employees (including the Beneficiar y). Further, the Petitioner's 
payroll employees are those identified as employees of Mexico on the organizational 
chart and employee list. As this matter will be remanded, the Petitioner should be instructed to 
clarify its staffing levels and organizational structure, and document all claimed employees and 
contractors as ofthe date of tiling and beyond. 
Further , we acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiar y continues to act in an executive 
role for the two foreign entities and that he will spend approximately 40 percent of his time on this 
function. However , the Petitioner must still establish that his dutie s performed in the United States 
2 
Mauer of M-USA LLC 
as the Petitioner's president will be primarily executive in nature. The Petitioner has implied that the 
three companies each have distinct roles as part of the same broader qualifying organization, but it 
has not sufficiently explained or documented whether or how the employees of the two Mexican 
entities support the day-to-day operations of the U.S. entity. If the Petitioner claims that the 
Beneficiary relies on employees of the related entities to relieve him from performing non-executive 
tasks in the United States, it should provide an explanation of this arrangement, along with 
supporting documentation. 
We are remanding this matter so that the Director can properly make the initial determination on the 
issue of the Beneficiary's proposed employment in an executive capacity after a thorough review 
and analysis of the Petitioner's evidence. The Director should request any additional evidence 
deemed warranted and allow the Petitioner to submit such evidence within a reasonable period of 
time. 
ORDER: The matter is remanded for the entry of a new decision consistent with the foregoing 
analysis, which, if adverse, shall be certified to us tor review. 
Cite as Matter of M-USA LLC, lD# 1323014 (AAO June 5, 2018) 
3