remanded EB-1C Case: Tattoo Products Distribution

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF E-I-I-A-S- CORP. 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 28. 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-140. IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a tattoo products distributor, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its 
general operations manager under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational 
executives or managers. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(1)(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 a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required. that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial 
or executive capacity. Although the Director referenced the Petitioner's qualifying relationship with 
the Beneficiary's foreign employer and its ability to pay the Beneficiary the proffered wage. it is not 
clear from the record that the Director entered a finding on these two additional issues. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not reasonably explain why the submitted 
evidence did not satisfy the criteria for this visa classification. The Petitioner emphasizes that the 
Beneficiary's employment will be in a managerial capacity, not an executive capacity. The 
Petitioner contends that the evidence submitted establishes that the Beneficiary will work for it in a 
managerial capacity, that it has a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity. and that it has the 
ability to pay the Beneficiary the proffered wage. 
Upon de novo review of the record, we find that the Director did not offer an adequate analysis of 
the evidence submitted so that the Petitioner was afforded a fair opportunity to contest the decision 
and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. See 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.3(a)(l )(i): see 
also Matter (?f M-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). 
Although the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity. the 
record as presently constituted is insufficient to establish this claim. For example. the Petitioner 
stated that the Beneficiary will manage the operations but indicates that this includes establishing the 
goals and policies of the organization. This appears to correspond more closely to an executive 
function. See section 101 (a)( 44 )(B)(ii) of the Act. Additionally, the Petitioner indicated that the 
Beneficiary will be directly involved in identifying new markets and planning, directing. and 
Matter<?( E-1-J-A-S- Corp. 
coordinating marketing strategies and developing pricing strategies. The Petitioner does not identity 
a department or employees that will perform these duties and thereby relieve the Beneficiary from 
performing its marketing tasks. Similarly, the Petitioner noted that the Beneficiary will perform the 
budgetary and financial duties of the company and although it plans to staff its finance department in 
the future, the Petitioner did not employ anyone to perform these duties when the petition was tiled. 
The Petitioner also asserts that the Beneficiary will oversee the professional work of the foreign 
company's in-house mechanical engineers; however, the record does not include evidence that the 
Beneficiary will devote the majority of his time to oversight of the mechanical engineers and does 
not describe exactly what the oversight entails. Further, the record does not include sufficient 
evidence of the Petitioner's interrelationship and reliance on the foreign entity's employees and the 
services they provide to the Petitioner and the organization as a whole. 
With respect to a qualifying relationship with the foreign employer, the record does not currently 
include the Petitioner's number of authorized shares, the number of outstanding shares, or evidence 
of how the foreign entity acquired the Petitioner's stock; thus, the record as presently constituted 
does not establish the Petitioner's qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
With respect to the Petitioner's ability to pay, the Petitioner submitted its 2016 Form 1120, and the 
IRS Form W-2 issued to the Beneficiary in 2016. Both federal forms show that the Beneficiary was 
paid the proffered wage. We do note however, that the Petitioner's 2016 Form 1120, shows a 
significant decrease in the salaries paid to other employees from the salaries paid in 2014 and 2015. 
The salaries and wages as listed on the 2016 Form 1120 also do not correspond to the total number 
ofwages paid as represented on the 2016 Forms W-2 issued to the Petitioner's employees. excluding 
the Beneficiary. This discrepancy raises questions regarding the accuracy of the Petitioner's 2016 
Form 1120. 
Although the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to meet its burden of establishing that the 
Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity, the Director's decision 
contained inaccurate findings and did not adequately analyze the facts and apply the Jaw. When 
denying a petition, the Director has an atlirmative duty to explain the specific reasons for the denial: 
this duty includes informing a petitioner why the evidence did not satisfy its burden of proof 
pursuant to section 291 of the Act. 8 C.F.R. ~ 103.3(a)(1 )(i). As the Director did not satisfy this 
condition, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new 
decision. 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 decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and tor the entry of a new decision. 
Cite as Matter (~f E-1-1-A-S- Corp., ID# 681075 (AAO Sept. 28, 2017) 
2