sustained
EB-1C
sustained EB-1C Case: Construction And Property Management
Decision Summary
The director denied the petition for failing to establish that the beneficiary worked in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity abroad and would do so in the U.S. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding that a comprehensive analysis of the organizational structure and staffing of both entities showed they were sufficiently complex to support the beneficiary's managerial role. Despite shortcomings in the job descriptions, the record demonstrated the beneficiary supervised professionals and was relieved from daily non-qualifying tasks, meeting the preponderance of the evidence standard.
Criteria Discussed
Qualifying Managerial Or Executive Capacity Abroad Qualifying Managerial Or Executive Capacity In The U.S.
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
identifyingdatadeletedto preventclearlyunwarsded invasèonofpersonalprivacy PUBLICCOPY U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity U. S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO) 20 MassachusettsAve.N.W., MS2090 Washington,DC 20529-2090 U.S.Citizenship and Immigration Services DATE: FEB 0 3 2012 OFFICE:TEXASSERVICECENTER IN RE: Petitioner: Beneficiary: PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionforAlienWorkerasaMultinationalExecutiveorManagerPursuantto Section203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C) ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER: INSTRUCTIONS: Thisis thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOfficein yourcase.All documentshavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Anyfurtherinquirymustbemadeto thatoffice. Thankyou, PerryRhew Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice www.uscus.gov Page2 DISCUSSION: The preferencevisa petition wasdeniedby the Director, Texas ServiceCenter. The matteris now beforethe AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO) on appeal. The decisionof the directorwill be withdrawnandtheappealwill besustained. Thepetitioneris a multinationalcorporationthatprovidesdesign,construction,maintenance,andproperty managementservices. The petitionerendeavorsto classify the beneficiaryas an employment-based immigrantpursuantto section203(b)(1)(C)of the Immigrationand NationalityAct (the Act), 8U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C),asa multinationalexecutiveor manager.In denyingthepetition,thedirectorfoundthatthe petitionerfailedto establish: 1) that thebeneficiarywasemployedabroadin a qualifyingmanagerialor executivecapacity;and 2) that the beneficiarywould be employedin the United Statesin a qualifying managerialorexecutivecapacity. On appeal,counselsubmitsanappellatebrief disputingthedirector'sfindingsandpointingout factsin the recordthat addressthe relevantissuesconcerningthe beneficiary'smanagerialcapacityin his positions abroadandwith theU.S.entity. Section203(b)of theAct statesin pertinentpart: (1) PriorityWorkers.- Visasshallfirst bemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswho arealiensdescribedin anyof thefollowingsubparagraphs(A) through(C): * * (C) Certain Midtinational 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 subsidiarythereofandwho seeksto entertheUnitedStatesin orderto continueto render servicesto the sameemployeror to a subsidiaryor affiliate thereofin a capacitythat is managerialor executive. The languageof the statute is specific in limiting this provision to only those executivesand managerswho havepreviouslyworkedfor a firm, corporationor otherlegalentity,or anaffiliate or subsidiaryof thatentity, andwho arecoming to the United Statesto work for thesameentity, or its affiliate or subsidiary. Whilethedirectorwascorrectin emphasizingthedescriptionsof thebeneficiary'sdutieswiththeforeignand U.S.entities,this elementmustbereviewedin light of a comprehensiveanalysisof otherrelevantfactors, including the overall organizationalstructureand the beneficiary'splacementtherein. The record is persuasivein showingthatbothof thebeneficiary'semployersaresufficientlycomplexin theirorganizational compositionsin thatbotharecomprisedof multiplemanagerialtiersandhighly skilledprofessionalswho carry out the servicesthat eachentity sells to its clientele. Althoughthe petitionerhasnot provided organizationalchartsfor eitherentity,therecordcontainssufficientinformationabouttheir organizational hierarchiesandthebeneficiary'srolewith respecttotheprofessionalshesupervisedin hispositionabroadand thosehe would supervisein his proposedpositionwith the U.S.entity. Properconsiderationof all these factorsindicatesthateachentityis sufficientlystaffedwith individualswho areassignedto performdaily Page3 non-qualifyingtasksandrelievethebeneficiaryfrom havingto allocatetheprimaryportionof his time to suchtasks. Despiteanyshortfallsin thebeneficiary'sjob descriptions,theinformationprovidedis sufficientto meetthe preponderanceof theevidencestandardthatthebeneficiarywasprobablyemployedabroadandwouldmost likely be employedin the United Statesin a qualifyingmanagerialor executivecapacity. Seesection 101(a)(44)(A)of theAct. Accordingly,theAAO concludesthatthepetitionerhasovercomethe director'sadversefindingsandthe denialmustthereforebewithdrawn. In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenof provingeligibility for thebenefitsoughtremainsentirelywith the petitioner.Section291of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361.Thepetitionerin theinstantcasehasmetthatburden. ORDER: Theappealis sustained.
Use this winning precedent in your petition
MeritDraft analyzes sustained AAO decisions like this one to generate petition arguments that mirror what actually gets approved.
Build Your Winning Petition →No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.