Case Analysis for Multinational Executive or Manager
Case Analysis for Multinational Executive or Manager
In an appeal for a petition (file number not released) at the Texas Service Center, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the appeal because the proffered position was not in a capacity that is managerial or executive. The petitioner was a Florida corporation and it wanted to employ the beneficiary as its president. At the time of the filing, the beneficiary presented the following as his job duty:
On a daily basis, [the beneficiary] looks to source/purchase yachts…. As such, he often visits the yacht auctions that are held in Southern Florida on a weekly basis…. [H]e enthusiastically performs the restoration and repair of the [the petitioner’s yachts]. For the past year, he has personally devoted most of his time to the restoration of [a yacht]…. For repairs that he is unable to perform himself, …he supervises the outsourced mechanical work. (Percentage = 70%.)
Also, [the beneficiary] is currently devoting some of his time on [sic] the design and development of [the petitioner’s] …website…. (Percentage 5%)….
Based on this information, the director at the Texas Service Center determined that the proffered position is not in an executive or managerial capacity because the beneficiary spends 70 percent of his time restoring and repairing boats. According to the director, the beneficiary mostly performed the services of the petitioner’s company, and so the director dismissed the petition. In support of the director’s decision, AAO said that the petitioner must not only establish that the beneficiary executes the high level responsibilities specified in one of the definitions; it must also establish that the beneficiary primarily performs these specified responsibilities and does not spend a majority of his or her time either producing the petitioner’s products or providing the petitioner’s services. Hence the director’s decision to dismiss the petition was correct, because the proffered job position, even though called the president, had only limited managerial capacity.
Based on the above job description, AAO concluded that the petition did not offer a position to the beneficiary that was an executive or managerial capacity, and so the director’s decision to deny the petition was affirmed.