sustained EB-1C Case: Manufacturing

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.DepartmentofHomelandSecurity
U. S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)
20MassachusettsAve.N.W.,MS2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
8 U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: OCT26 2011 OFFICE:TEXASSERVICECENTER
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien WorkerasaMultinationalExecutiveor ManagerPursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
This isthedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in your case.All documentshavebeenreturnedto
theoffice that originally decidedyour case.Any furtherinquiry mustbemadeto thatoffice.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION:ThepreferencevisapetitionwasdeniedbytheDirector,TexasServiceCenter.Thematteris
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The decisionof the directorwill be
withdrawnandtheappealwill besustained.
The petitioneris a multinationalcorporationoperatingin the United Statesasa manufactureranddistributor
of fencing and fencing products. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavorsto classify the beneficiaryas an
employment-basedimmigrantpursuantto section203(b)(1)(C)of the Immigration andNationality Act (the
Act), 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C),asamultinationalexecutiveor manager.
In a decisiondatedDecember7, 2009,thedirectorconcludedthatthepetitionerfailedto establishthatthe
beneficiarywouldbeemployedin theUnitedStatesin a qualifyingmanagerialor executivecapacity.The
director'sanalysisfocusedprimarily on the positiontitles of the employeeswho were depictedin the
petitioner'sorganizationalchart,which thepetitionersubmittedin theresponseto theAugust 11,2009request
for additionalevidence(RFE).
On appeal,counseldisputesthe director's decisionand urgesthe AAO to review previously submitted
documents.Counselassertsthattherecordaspresentlyconstituteddoesnotwarrantanadverseconclusion.
Section203(b)of theAct statesin pertinentpart:
(1) Priority Workers.-- Visas shall first be madeavailable. . . to qualified immigrantswho
arealiensdescribedin anyof thefollowing subparagraphs(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 Statesunder this subparagraph,has been
employedfor at least1 year by a firm or corporationor other legal entity or an affiliate or
subsidiary thereof and who seeksto enter the United States in order to continue to render
servicesto the sameemployeror to a subsidiaryor affiliatethereofin a capacitythat is
managerialor executive.
The languageof the statuteis specificin limiting this provisionto only thoseexecutivesandmanagerswho
havepreviouslyworkedfor a firm, corporationor otherlegalentity,or anaffiliate or subsidiaryof that entity,
andwho arecomingto theUnitedStatesto work for thesameentity,or its affiliate or subsidiary.
The statutorydefinitionof "managerialcapacity"allows for both "personnelmanagers"and "function
managers."Seesection101(a)(44)(A)(i)and(ii) of theAct,8U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(44)(A)(i)and(ii). Personnel
managersare requiredto primarily superviseand controlthe work of other supervisory,professional,or
managerialemployees.Seesection101(a)(44)(A)(ii)of theAct. Contraryto thecommonunderstandingof
theword "manager,"the statuteplainly statesthata "first line supervisoris not consideredto beactingin a
managerialcapacitymerelyby virtue of the supervisor'ssupervisorydutiesunlessthe employeessupervised
areprofessional."Section101(a)(44)(A)(iv)of theAct. If a beneficiarydirectly supervisesotheremployees,
the beneficiarymust alsohavethe authorityto hire and fire thoseemployees,or recommendthoseactions,
andtakeotherpersonnelactions. Section101(a)(44)(A)(iii)of theAct.
Page3
The statutorydefinition of the term "executivecapacity" focuseson a person'selevatedposition within a
complex organizationalhierarchy,including major componentsor functions of the organization,and that
person'sauthorityto directtheorganization.Section101(a)(44)(B)of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(44)(B).
Underthestatute,abeneficiarymusthavetheabilityto "directthemanagement"and"establishthegoalsand
policies"of thatorganization.Inherentto the definition,the organizationmusthavea subordinatelevelof
employeesfor the beneficiaryto directandthe beneficiarymustprimarilyfocuson the broadgoalsand
policies of the organizationratherthan the day-to-operationsof the enterprise. An individual will not be
deemedanexecutiveunderthestatutesimplybecausetheyhaveanexecutivetitle or becausethey"direct"the
enterpriseasthe owneror solemanagerialemployee. The beneficiarymust alsoexercise"wide latitudein
discretionary decision making" and receive only "general supervision or direction from higher level
executives,theboardof directors,or stockholdersof theorganization."Id.
In the presentmatter,the director'sanalysisfocusedprimarily on the positiontitles of the petitioner'sstaff.
The director seeminglyimplied that the staffing containeda disproportionatenumber of supervisoryor
managerialpersonnel.However,afterconductingamorecomprehensivereviewof therecordandtakinginto
accountthe petitioner'ssupportingdocuments,the AAO finds that the director'sanalysisoversimplifiedthe
petitioner'sorganizationalstructureandfailedto properlyconsiderthejob descriptionsof thebeneficiaryand
themanagerialandsubordinatestaffwho carriedoutandsupervisedthepetitioner'sdaily operation.
Whenexaminingthe executiveor managerialcapacityof the beneficiary,the AAO will look at the
descriptionof theproposedemployment,thepetitioner'sorganizationalhierarchy,thebeneficiary'sposition
therein,and the petitioner'soverall ability to relievethe beneficiaryfrom having to primarily performthe
daily operationaltasks. After reviewingthe documentsthat pertainto theserelevantfactors,theAAO finds
that the beneficiary'sjob descriptionis adequatelysupportedby a detailedblock organizationalchart,which
depictsthebeneficiaryasheadof the organizationwith a generalmanagerashis direct subordinateandthree
additional managerial/supervisoryemployeesready to overseethe various non-professionalemployeesin
their performanceof the petitioner's non-qualifying tasks. This organizationalhierarchy is adequately
supportedby payroll documentsthat disclosethe namesand salariesof the petitioner'semployeesdirectly
prior to the filing of the Form I-140. Thus, in light of the evidenceof record, it appearsthat the petitioner was
adequatelystaffedto supportthe beneficiaryin a primarily managerialor executivecapacity.
In the presentmatter,the petitioner provided sufficient documentationto meetthe preponderanceof the
evidencestandardtherebyestablishingthatthebeneficiarywouldmorelikely thannot beemployedin the
United Statesin a primarily managerialor executivecapacity.Seesection101(a)(44)(A)of theAct.
In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenof provingeligibilityfor thebenefitsoughtremainsentirelywith the
petitioner. Section291of the Act, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361. The petitionerin the instantcasehassustainedthat
burden.
ORDER: Theappealis sustained.