dismissed E-2 Case: Telecommunications

(b)(6)
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-T -, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 23,2015 
CERTIFICATION OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
APPLICATION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The treaty enterprise (referred to herein as "the Employer"), an international telecommunications 
service provider, seeks 
to employ the Applicant as an operations manager based on a treaty of 
friendship, commerce, and navigation. See 10l(a)(l5)(E)(ii) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(E)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(e)(3). The Director, California Service 
Center, denied the application. The matter is now before us on certification.' The application will 
be denied. 
The Director denied the application, finding the record lacks evidence that the alien Applicant would 
carry out the duties and assume a placement within the Employer's organizational hierarchy such 
that the Applicant would be employed in a position that is principally and primarily executive or 
supervisory in nature. 
Recognizing that the application involved a complex or novel issue of law, the director certified the 
decision to us for review. 8 C.F.R. § 103.4(a). 
I. The Law 
Section 10l(a)(l5)(E)(ii) ofthe Act defines a treaty investor as: 
an alien entitled to enter the United States under and in pursuance of the provisions of 
a treaty of commerce and navigation between the United States and the foreign state 
of which he is a national, and the spouse and children of any such alien if 
accompanying or following to join him; ... (ii) solely to develop and direct the 
operations of an enterprise in which he has invested, or of an enterprise in which he is 
actively in the process of investing, a substantial amount of capital .... 
1 We note that the Employer filed a motion to reconsider on June 15, 2012, which was denied by 
the Director on August 12, 2012 because it did not meet the requirements for a motion. See 8 C.F.R § 103.5(a)(3), (4). 
The Employer filed a second motion to reconsider on September 17, 2012, which was denied as 
late by the Director on October 5, 2012. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (4). The Employer then filed an appeal 
on November 2, 2012, which we rejected for lack of jurisdiction. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.1(c)(5). 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-T-, Inc. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(e)(3) states the following, in pertinent part, with regard to the 
employee of a treaty investor: 
... an alien employee of a treaty investor, if otherwise admissible, may be classified as 
E-2 if the employee is in or is coming to the United States to engage in duties of an 
executive or supervisory character, or, if employed in a lesser capacity, the employee has 
special qualifications that make the alien's services essential to the efficient operation of 
the enterprise .... 
Additionally, the regulation at 8 CF.R. § 214.2(e)(17) states that in order for a position to be deemed 
as that of an executive or supervisory character, that position ''must be principally and primarily, as 
opposed to incidentally or collaterally, executive or supervisory in nature" such that the duties of the 
position are those that "provide the employee ultimate control and responsibility for the enterprise's 
overall operation or a major component thereof." The regulation further states that in order to 
determine whether the applicant has established possession of the requisite control and 
responsibility, a Service officer must consider the following factors, where applicable: 
(i) That an executive position is one which provides the employee with great authority to 
determine the policy of, and the direction for, the enterprise; 
(ii) That a position primarily of supervisory character provides the employee supervisory 
responsibility for a ·significant proportion of an enterprise's operations and does not 
generally involve the direct supervision of low-level employees, and; · 
(iii) Whether the applicant possesses executive and supervisory skills and experience; a 
salary and position title commensurate with executive or supervisory employment; 
recognition or indicia of the position as one of authority and responsibility in the overall 
organizational structure; responsibility for making discretionary decisions, setting 
policies, directing and managing business operations, supervising other professional and 
supervisory personnel; and that, if the position requires some routine work usually 
performed by a staff employee, such functions may only be of an incidental nature. 
II. Facts and Procedural History 
The Employer is a Florida corporation that seeks to employ the Applicant as its operation~ manager 
with a salary of $45,000 per year. Section 2, No. 7(c} of the Form 1-129 Supplement E indicates that 
the Employer employed a total of ten employees in executive or managerial positions at the time of 
filing. Additionally, CEO submitted a supporting statement dated February 6, 
2012 on behalf of the Employer. With regard to the Applicant's proposed position, 
stated the following: 
"[The Applicant] will be responsible for analyzing and establishing operational strategies 
that would be suitable for our corporation's management requirements. She will direct 
and coordinate investment activities to establish short and long range strategic 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-T-, Inc. 
management and financial operations. [The Applicant] will direct and coordinate our 
corporation and subsidiary's operational management activities to ensure compliance 
with our internal and external corporate standards. She will also establish management 
control systems for operational procedures. [She] will formulate and administer company 
policies to develop long range goals and objectives for operational developments. 
In support of the application, the Applicant also submitted the Employer's organizational chart in 
which she was depicted in a position that is subordinate to that of the chief operations officer (COO), 
who was listed as one of five subordinate positions to the company's CEO. The chart does not show 
any employees subordinate to the Applicant and indicates that there were two positions - those of 
international relations director and carrier relations director - that assumed similar placement as 
direct subordinates ofthe COO within the Employer's organizational hierarchy. 
After initial review, the Director determined that the record lacked sufficient 
evidence demonstrating 
that the Applicant was eligible for classification as an E-2 nonimmigrant employee of an E-2 treaty 
investor. Accordingly, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) dated February 14, 2012. 
Among the issues addressed in the RFE was that of the Applicant's proposed position with the 
Employer. The Director asked for the following information: (1) a supplemental job description 
listing the Applicant's assigned job duties, including the percentage of time the Applicant would 
allocate to each duty; (2) a list of the total number of employees located at the Employer's location 
where the Applicant is to be employed; (3) a list of all employees the Applicant supervises or 
oversees along with the job titles and position descriptions of the Applicant's subordinates; (4) an 
organizational chart of the Employer; and (5) wage and tax documents identifying the Employer's 
employees and their respective wages. 
The record shows that counsel for the Employer assisted with the RFE response, which included a 
May 1, 2012 statement from counsel reiterating the job description that was provided initially in the 
Form I-129 supporting statement from In a separate statement, also dated May 1, 
2012, provided a discussion of the services that the Employer and· its affiliates 
provide, pointing out that the Applicant previously held the position of operations manager at one of 
the Employer's subsidiaries. claimed that the Applicant's proposed position is that of 
an essential executive who will direct operational activities "at the highest level of all organizations 
" repeated the general information that he provided in his initial 
supporting statement and added that the Applicant has an in-depth knowledge of supply and demand 
and would be able to coordinate the company's resources with customers' demands, while ensuring 
that customers receive proper delivery of the top quality telecommunication services. 
· clarified that the Applicant would not have any subordinates, claiming 
that the proposed position is 
"hands[-]on executive in nature" and would require the Applicant to make decisions that would be 
implemented throughout the Employer and its various subsidiaries and affiliates. 
did not provide a list of the Applicant's specific job duties and their respective time 
constraints, even though the Director expressly requested this information in the RFE. Failure to 
submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying a 
petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-T-, Inc. 
III. Analysis 
The primary issue to be addressed in this proceeding is whether the Employer that seeks to hire the 
Applicant provided sufficient evidence to establish that the Applicant would be principally and 
primarily employed in a position of executive or supervisory character pursuant to the provisions of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(e)(l7)(iii). In making this determination, we will first examine the description of 
the job duties to be performed by the Applicant. A detailed description of actual daily job duties is 
crucial, as the duties themselves reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajj'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Upon review of the two job descriptions provided by the CEO of the Employer, we find that neither 
contains sufficient information to convey a meaningful understanding of the Applicant's actual daily 
tasks, without which we are unable to make a determination as to the nature of the proposed 
employment. Looking more closely at statement from May 1, 2012, which was 
submitted in response to the RFE, we note that considerable focus was placed on the Applicant's 
position title and level of essentiality, neither of which establishes what specific tasks the Applicant 
would carry out on a day-to-day basis or the proportion of executive or supervisory tasks versus 
tasks that are non-executive and non-supervisory. While also stated that the Applicant 
would analyze and establish operational objectives and strategies within the context of a 
telecommunications enterprise, this claim reveals no specific information that would explain the 
tasks the Applicant would perform in order to meet this broad job responsibility. In other words, 
there is no information as to how the Applicant would obtain the information that is to be analyzed 
and what sorts of data she would consider in determining the operational strategies and objectives. 
In addition, indicated that the Applicant would serve as the coordinator in matching 
customers' demand for the Employer's services. However, the record similarly lacks specific 
information clarifying the actual process and the tasks the Applicant would assume in her efforts to 
ensure proper coordination. While indicated that the Applicant would approve 
scheduling for proper delivery of services, it is unclear who would actually do the scheduling, which 
irt itself is not indicative of an executive or supervisory task. Despite use of the terms 
"direct and coordinate" in an apparent effort to establish that the Applicant's position would involve 
a heightened degree of discretionary authority with respect to her role in capital investment 
activities, these terms are vague and do not demonstrate the Applicant's actual underlying day-to­
day duties. 
Furthermore, turning to the Applicant's salary and placement within the Employer's organizational 
chart, we find that neither is effective in establishing that the proposed position would be of an 
executive or supervisory character. The chart does not establish that the Applicant would hold an 
executive or supervisory position, despite what her position title may indicate. The chart, which 
reflects 11 employees total, indicates that there are two supervisory levels above the applicant's 
position-the Employer's COO and CEO. The chart contains no indication that anyone other than 
the Applicant herself would be charged with operations-related tasks. Absent evidence that other 
employees of the Employer will relieve the Applicant of performing non-qualifying duties, it appears 
4 
Matter of C-T-, Inc. 
she would perform and carry out the very tasks she would be charged with overseeing. As 
previously noted, the record does not establish that the non-executive or non-supervisory tasks 
would only be incidental to the Applicant's proposed position. Moreover, when considering the 
Applicant's proffered wage, it is unclear why, if the Applicant is to occupy a key executive position, 
her salary is significantly lower than any other employee depicted in a parallel tier within the 
organizational hierarchy. 2 
In summary, the record, particularly the evidence pertaining to the Applicant's job duties, salary, and 
her specific placement within the Employer's organizational hierarchy, fails to establish that the 
proposed position would be principally and primarily comprised of executive or supervisory tasks. 
Therefore, we cannot conclude that the Applicant would be employed in a position of executive or 
supervisory character. 
IV. Conclusion 
In visa proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
applicant. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
Accordingly, the application must be denied. 
ORDER: The initial decision of the Director, California Service Center is affirmed, and the 
application is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofC-T-, Inc., ID# 16351 (AAO Dec. 23, 2015) 
2 We note that counsel, in her letter in support of the Employer's second motion to reconsider, stated that the Applicant, 
as a member of the family structure that owns the Employer, "will receive reasonable compensation which is eventually 
supplemented by either corporate distributions or corporate remunerations received by members of the family unit." The 
record does not demonstrate that the Applicant has received or will receive additional compensation as a member of the 
family unit. Further, simply receiving remuneration for being a relative of the owners of the Employer is not necessarily 
compensation for services rendered; it also does not establish that the Applicant will be acting principally or primarily in 
a managerial or supervisory capacity. 
5