sustained EB-1C Case: Business Management

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U. S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
Officeof AdministrativeAppealsMS2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
identifyingdatadeletedtoventclearlyunwarranted U.S.Citizenship
pre and Immigration
invasionof personalprivacy Services
PUBLICCOPY
FILE: OFFICE:NEBRASKASERVICECENTER Date: DEC30 2010
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor AlienWorkerasaMultinationalExecutiveor ManagerPursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Thisis thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOfficein yourcase.All documentshavebeenreturnedto
theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Any furtherinquirymustbemadetothatoffice.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: TheDirector,NebraskaServiceCenter,deniedthepreferencevisapetition. Thematteris
now beforethe AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO) on appeal. The decisionof the directorwill be
withdrawnandtheappealwill besustained.
Thepetitioneris aMinnesotacorporationthatseeksto employthebeneficiaryasits president.Accordingly,
thepetitionerendeavorsto classifythe beneficiaryasanemployment-basedimmigrantpursuantto section
203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C),asa multinational
executiveor manager.Thedirectordeniedthepetitionbasedon two independentgroundsof ineligibility:
1)thepetitionerfailedto establishthatthe beneficiarywasemployedabroadin a qualifyingmanagerialor
executivecapacity;and 2) the petitionerfailed to establishthat it would employthe beneficiaryin a
managerialorexecutivecapacity.
On appeal,counselsubmitsan appellatebrief disputingthe director'sfindings. Counselalso provided
additionaldocumentationaddressingthebeneficiary'semploymentabroadandwith theU.S.entity. Morein-
depthinformationwasalsoprovidedwith regardto eachentity'sorganizationalstructure,the beneficiary's
placementandrolewithin eachorganization,andtheextentof thebeneficiary'sinvolvementin directingthe
managementof eachentity.
Section203(b)of theAct statesin pertinentpart:
(1) PriorityWorkers.-- Visasshallfirst bemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswho
arealiensdescribedin anyof thefollowingsubparagraphs(A) through(C):
(C) Certain Multinational Executivesand Managers.-- An alien is describedin this
subparagraphif the alien, in the 3 yearsprecedingthe time of the alien'sapplicationfor
classificationand admissioninto the United Statesunder this subparagraph,has been
employedfor at least1yearby a firm or corporationor otherlegalentityor anaffiliateor
subsidiary thereof and who seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to render
services to the same employer or to a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is
managerialor executive.
Thelanguageof thestatuteis specificin limiting this provisionto only thoseexecutivesandmanagerswho
havepreviouslyworkedfor afirm, corporationor otherlegalentity,or anaffiliateor subsidiaryof thatentity,
andwhoarecomingto theUnitedStatesto workfor thesameentity,or itsaffiliateor subsidiary.
The statutorydefinitionof "managerialcapacity"allowsfor both "personnelmanagers"anda "function
managers."Seesection101(a)(44)(A)(i)and(ii) of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(44)(A)(i)and(ii). Personnel
managersarerequiredto primarily superviseandcontrolthe work of othersupervisory,professional,or
managerialemployees.Contraryto the commonunderstandingof theword "manager,"the statuteplainly
statesthata "first linesupervisoris notconsideredto beactingin a managerialcapacitymerelyby virtueof
the supervisor'ssupervisory duties unless the employeessupervisedare professional."Section
101(a)(44)(A)(iv)of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(ii)(B)((2). If a beneficiarydirectly supervisesother
employees,thebeneficiarymustalsohavetheauthorityto hireandfirethoseemployees,orrecommendthose
actions,andtakeotherpersonnelactions. 8C.F.R.§214.2(l)(ii)(B)(3).
Page3
The statutory defmition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's elevated position within a
complex organizationalhierarchy,including major componentsor functions of the organization,and that
person'sauthorityto directtheorganization.Section101(a)(44)(B)of the Act, 8 U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(44)(B).
Underthestatute,abeneficiarymusthavetheabilityto "directthemanagement"and"establishthegoalsand
policies"of thatorganization.Inherentto thedefinition,the organizationmusthavea subordinatelevelof
employeesfor the beneficiaryto directandthe beneficiarymustprimarily focuson the broadgoalsand
policiesof the organizationratherthanthe day-to-operationsof the enterprise.An individualwill not be
deemedanexecutiveunderthestatutesimplybecausetheyhaveanexecutivetitle or becausethey"direct"the
enterpriseastheowneror solemanagerialemployee.Thebeneficiarymustalsoexercise"wide latitudein
discretionarydecisionmaking" and receiveonly "generalsupervisionor direction from higher level
executives,theboardof directors,or stockholdersof theorganization."Id.
In the denial, the director placedgreat emphasison the beneficiary'sjob descriptionsandthejob descriptions
of his subordinates. The director also found that the petitioner failed to provide evidenceof a professional,
managerial,or supervisorystaff thatwould relievethe beneficiaryfrom havingto primarilyperformnon-
qualifyingtasks.However,theevidenceof recordindicatesthatthedirector'sassessmentis inaccurate.The
petitioner'sorganizationalchart showsseverallevels of managementthat separatethe beneficiary from having
to directly overseenon-professionalemployees.The recordalsocontainssupportingevidenceshowingthat
the petitioner'sMinnesotabusinesswas adequatelystaffedat the time the Form I-140 was filed. The
petitionersimilarlyshowedthatthebeneficiary'spositionabroaddid not involveoverseeinga staffof non-
professionalornon-managerialemployees.
Therefore,while thedirectorwascorrectin placinggreatemphasison thedescriptionsof thebeneficiary's
duties,this elementmustbe assessedin light of a comprehensiveanalysisof otherrelevantfactors. As
indicatedabove,suchfactorsincludeanentity'soverallorganizationalstructureaswell asthebeneficiary's
positionwith respectto otherswithin the departmentor organizationhe managedor would manage.
Considerationof thesefactorsstronglyindicatesthatboththepetitioningandforeignentitiesareadequately
staffedwith subordinatefirst-line supervisorswho would overseethe individualsassignedto performthe
dailynon-qualifyingtasks.Cf FamilyInc.v. USCIS,469F.3d1313(9thCir. 2006)
In the present matter, the petitioner provided sufficient documentation to meet the preponderance of the
evidence standardestablishing that the beneficiary was and would more likely than not be employed in a
primarilymanagerialorexecutivecapacityasdefinedatsections101(a)(44)(A)and(B) oftheAct.
In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenof provingeligibility for thebenefitsoughtremainsentirelywith the
petitioner. Section291of the Act, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361. Thepetitionerin the instantcasehassustainedthat
burden.
ORDER: Theappealissustained.