sustained EB-1C Case: Hospitality

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U. S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve.N.W., MS 2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
L
DATE: p' 2 g ?[]j'¿ OFFICE:NEBRASKASERVICECENTER
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.Anyfurtherinquirymustbemadetothatoffice.
Thankyou,
RonRosenberg
ActingChief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION:Thepreferencevisapetitionwasdeniedby theDirector,NebraskaServiceCenter. The
matteris nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) onappeal.Thedecisionofthedirectorwill be
withdrawnandtheappealwill besustained.
Thepetitioneris alimitedliability corporationoperatingin theUnitedStatesasa luxuryhotelestablishment.
Accordingly,thepetitionerendeavorsto classifythebeneficiaryasanemployment-basedimmigrantpursuant
to section203(b)(1)(C)of the ImmigrationandNationalityAct (the Act), 8U.S.C.§ ll53(b)(1)(C), as a
multinationalexecutiveormanager.
The directordeniedthe petition basedon the conclusionthat the petitionerfailed to establishthat the
beneficiarywould be employedin the United Statesin a qualifying managerialor executivecapacity.
Althoughthedirectornotedthatthepetitionerfailedto submita copyof theforeignentity'sorganizational
chart, the directordid not affirmativelyissuean adversefinding pertainingto the beneficiary'sformer
employmentwith theforeignentity. Moreover,theAAO hasconducteda thoroughreviewof therecordand
concludesthat an adversefmding would not have been warrantedwith regardto the beneficiary's
employmentabroad.Therefore,theonly oneadverseconclusionto beaddressedin thismatteris theissueof
thebeneficiary'sproposedemploymentwith theU.S.petitioner.
On appeal,counseldisputesthe denialandaddressesthe director'sadversefindings,providinga detailed
discussionof thepetitioner'svastorganizationalhierarchyandthebeneficiary'spositionwithinthathierarchy
andwithrespecttohissubordinates.
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's applicationfor
classification and admission into the United States under this subparagraph,has been
employedfor at least1 yearby a firm or corporationor otherlegalentityor anaffiliateor
subsidiarythereofandwho seeksto enterthe UnitedStatesin orderto continueto render
servicesto the sameemployeror to a subsidiaryor affiliate thereofin a capacitythat is
managerialor executive.
Thelanguageof thestatuteis specificin limiting this provisionto only thoseexecutivesandmanagerswho
havepreviouslyworkedfor a firm,corporationorotherlegalentity,oranaffiliateor subsidiaryof thatentity,
andwhoarecomingtotheUnitedStatestoworkfor thesameentity,oritsaffiliateor subsidiary.
The statutorydefinitionof "managerialcapacity"allows for both "personnelmanagers"and a "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 the word "manager,"the statuteplainly
Page3
statesthata "first line supervisoris notconsideredto beactingin a managerialcapacitymerelyby virtueof
the supervisor'ssupervisory duties unless the employeessupervisedare professional." Section
101(a)(44)(A)(iv)of theAct; 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(4).If abeneficiarydirectlysupervisesotheremployees,the
beneficiarymustalsohavetheauthorityto hireandfire thoseemployees,or recommendthoseactions,and
takeotherpersonnelactions. 8C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(2).
In the denial,the directorbasedhis conclusionon severalobservations.First, thedirectorfoundthat the
petitionerfailed to establishthat the beneficiarywould overseethe work of professional,managerial,or
supervisorypersonnel.Second,thedirectorfoundthatthepetitionerhasnotreacheda levelof organizational
complexitythatcouldsustainthebeneficiaryin a positionwheretheprimaryportionof his time wouldbe
allocatedto taskswithinaqualifyingmanagerialorexecutivecapacity.
After reviewingthe recordin its entirety,the AAO finds that the director'sobservationswereincorrect.
Contraryto thedirector'sfindings,therecordadequatelydemonstratesa complexorganizationalhierarchy
wherethebeneficiaryoccupiesoneof severalmanagementtiers. Boththerecordandcounsel'sdescription
of thepetitioningorganizationindicatethatbeneaththebeneficiary'smanagerialtier,thereareseverallayers
of personnelandthelayerthatisdirectlysubordinateto thebeneficiaryis comprisedof supervisorypersonnel
whohavesubordinatesof theirown. Thus,while it is notclearwhetherthebeneficiary'sdirectsubordinates
are professionalemployees,section101(a)(44)(A)(ii)of the Act clearly statesthat the beneficiarymay
overseethework of othermanagerialor supervisoryemployees(regardlessof whethertheyarealsodeemed
professional)andstill bedeemedasbeingemployedwithinaqualifyingmanagerialcapacity.
Furthermore,in reviewingthedescriptionof thebeneficiary'sproposedemployment,theAAO findsthatthe
recordcontainssufficientinformationto demonstratethattheprimaryportionof thebeneficiary'stimewould
beallocatedto thesupervisionof a managerialand/orsupervisorystaff,thusindicatingthatthebeneficiary
wouldprimarilyperformtaskswithinaqualifyingmanagerialcapacity.
Accordingly,theAAO findsthatsufficientevidencehasbeensubmittedto showthatthebeneficiarywould
morelikely thannotbeemployedin theUnitedStatesin a primarilymanagerialcapacity,therebyallowing
thepetitioner to meetthe preponderanceof the evidencestandard. Seesection 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act.
In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenof proving eligibility for thebenefitsoughtremainsentirelywith the
petitioner.Section291of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ l361. Thepetitionerin theinstantcasehasmetthatburden.
ORDER: Theappealis sustained.