dismissed EB-1C Case: Automobile Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 14274085 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 5, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner, a global provider of automobile financing solutions, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as its "Senior Manager Strategic Initiatives" under the first preference immigrant 
classification for multinational managers or executives. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that: (1) the Petitioner will employ the Beneficiary in the United States in a 
managerial or executive capacity; and (2) the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial 
or executive capacity. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
An immigrant visa is available to a beneficiary who, in the three years preceding the filing of the petition, 
has been employed outside the United States for at least one year in a managerial or executive capacity, 
and seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to render managerial or executive services to the 
same employer or to its subsidiary or affiliate. Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act. 
The Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, must include a statement from an authorized 
official of the petitioning United States employer which demonstrates that the beneficiary has been 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for at least one year in the three years preceding 
the filing of the petition, that the beneficiary is coming to work in the United States for the same employer 
or a subsidiary or affiliate of the foreign employer, and that the prospective U.S. employer has been doing 
business for at least one year. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3). 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that it seeks to employ the Beneficiary in a 
managerial capacity. The Petitioner specifies that it intends to employ the Beneficiary in a managerial 
capacity, specifically in the role of a function manager, and therefore we need not consider the separate 
requirements relating to an executive capacity. 
"Managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization; 
supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or 
manages an essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the 
organization; has authority over personnel actions or functions at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and exercises discretion over the 
day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does not supervise or control the 
work of a subordinate staff but instead is primarily responsible for managing an "essential function" 
within the organization. See section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. If a petitioner claims that a 
beneficiary will manage an essential function, it must clearly describe the duties to be performed in 
managing the essential function. In addition, the petitioner must demonstrate that "(l) the function is 
a clearly defined activity; (2) the function is 'essential,' i.e., core to the organization; (3) the 
beneficiary will primarily manage, as opposed to perform, the function; (4) the beneficiary will act at 
a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and (5) the 
beneficiary will exercise discretion over the function's day-to-day operations." Matter of G- Inc., 
Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
A. Duties 
To be eligible for this immigrant visa classification as a manager, the Petitioner must show that the 
beneficiary will perform the high-level responsibilities set forth in the statutory definition at section 
10l(a)(44)(A)(i)-(iv) of the Act. If the record does not establish that the offered position meets all 
four of these elements, we cannot conclude that it is a qualifying managerial position. If the Petitioner 
establishes that the offered position meets all the elements set forth in the statutory definition, the 
Petitioner must prove that the Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial duties, as opposed 
to ordinary operational activities alongside the Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. 
USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5) requires the Petitioner to submit a statement which clearly 
describes the duties to be performed by the Beneficiary. Beyond the required description of the job 
duties, we examine the company's organizational structure, the duties of the Beneficiary's subordinate 
employees, the presence of other employees to relieve the Beneficiary from performing operational 
duties, the nature of the business, and any other factors that will contribute to understanding a 
Beneficiary's actual duties and role in the business. 
In the case of a function manager with no direct subordinates, other factors considered may include a 
beneficiary's position within the organizational hierarchy, the depth of a petitioner's organizational 
structure, the scope of a beneficiary's authority and its impact on a petitioner's operations, the indirect 
supervision of employees within the scope of the function managed, and the value of the budgets, 
2 
products, or services that a beneficiary manages. See Matter ofZ-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 
(AAO Apr. 14, 2016). 
In its initial letter of support, the Petitioner described the duties of the proposed position as follows: 
The Senior Manager Strategic Initiative will be tasked with developing and deploying 
[the Petitioner's] strategic framework. This framework serves as the foundation by 
which [ the Petitioner] helped to grow its brands by disrupting existing business models, 
deploying innovative technology, identifying and acquiring complementary 
businesses, and/or creating new partnerships with third parties. The Senior Manager 
Strategic Initiatives will gain a deep understanding of various strategic methodologies, 
design an approach that works for [the Petitioner] and lead the execution. It is expected 
that this role will also lead and oversee initiatives and/or transactions relating to 
emerging mobility solutions, capitalizing on "fleetization", the online showroom, 
and/or big data analytics. 
In addition to the above listed duties, [the Beneficiary] will be responsible for the 
following duties: 
• Responsible for establishing [the Petitioner's] framework for identifying, 
reviewing, manaJing andl makilg stytegic decisions in the following areas: 
• ~hips wit D and other mobility companies 
• L___J company acquisitions or alliances 
• B2C direct to consumer business models 
• Forward integrating into new service offerings, including remarketing, so 
as to capitalize on the opportunities created by "fleetization" 
• Innovative technologies, for the purpose of improving the customer 
experience and win customers for life. 
• Internal and external resources to develop key elements of the strategic 
framework 
• Best practices and how to benchmark with other companies 
• Improve communication with internal stakeholders 
• Implementation of agreed upon routines, such as executive offsite meetings 
and periodic strategic reviews 
• Lead business case development and execute strategic initiatives 
The Director found this initial description of duties too vague, and issued a request for evidence (RFE). 
In response, the Petitioner submitted an updated description of the duties of the proposed position, 
along with the percentage of time to be devoted to each area of the stated duties. The Petitioner 
provided the following chart: 
3 
Senior Management Strategic Initiatives 
Lead, manage, and execute workstream/strategic initiatives in 
the concept research of new business opportunities. As part of 
this duty, the Beneficiary will be tasked with: 
- Meeting with dealers, banks, OEMs and other business 
counterparts 
- Managing and coordinating Subject Matter Experts 
(SMEs) m the discovery, due diligence, and 
development of detailed business cases particularly on 
initiatives and/or transactions relating to emergmg 
mobility solutions, fleetization, the online showroom, 
fintech company acquisitions/alliances, and big data 
analytics. 
- Oversee and review financial projections and valuations 
of projects/initiatives. 
Assist leadership m understanding emergmg trends and 
innovative technologies for the purpose of developing a 
strategic road map to create and maintain competitive 
advantages. The technologies will include digital autonomous, 
subscription, block chain, machine learning, and AI). As part 
of this duty, the Beneficiary is tasked with: 
- Implementing strategic planning routines, including 
megatrend monitoring, competitive analysis, scenano 
planning, and executive offsite meetings. 
- Establishing and managing a framework to engage with 
broader Petitioner organization in capturing emerging 
opportunities for evaluation ( crowdsourcing ideation). 
- Supporting the delivery of annual training proposals for 
all Strategic Initiatives team members and ensure proper 
execution. 
Percentage of Time 
Spent on Duties 
70% 
30% 
100% 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary 
would be employed in a capacity that was primarily managerial. Specifically, the Director determined 
that the description of duties provided, both initially and in response to the RFE, was too vague to 
definitely ascertain which of the Beneficiary's tasks were managerial, and which were not. 
4 
Upon review, we concur with the Director's findings. The duties as described do little to shed light 
on the actual duties of the Beneficiary, and the amount of time devoted to each such task. For example, 
the duties comprising 70% of the Beneficiary's time, as set forth in the chart above, list duties such as 
"meeting with dealers, banks, OEMs and other business counterparts." Without more detail, we 
cannot determine what such meetings entail, the nature or subject matter of those meetings, and 
whether they are managerial in nature. For example, it is unclear if the substance of such meetings 
revolves around the sale and marketing of the Petitioner's financial products or its attempt to acquire 
new business accounts or relationships. Given this uncertainty, we cannot conclude that such a task 
is primarily managerial in nature given that it may actually be akin to the types of meetings attended 
or conducted by sales or marketing representatives. 
In addition, the Petitioner also indicates that a majority of the Beneficiary's time will be devoted to 
the oversight of SMEs. Upon review, it is unclear from the Petitioner's description exactly what this 
duty entails. The Petitioner provides no information on the identity of these SMEs, leaving it unclear 
if they are employees of the Petitioner or outside contacts within the industry. Moreover, the 
Beneficiary's claimed management and coordination of these SMEs in developing business cases has 
not been defined. As written, we are unable to determine exactly what this task is, and thus precluded 
from determining that it is primarily managerial in nature. 
Finally, the third duty to which the majority of the Beneficiary's time is attributed is described as 
overseeing and reviewing financial projections and valuation of projects and initiatives. Given the 
Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary is tasked with developing and deploying the Petitioner's 
strategic framework, this duty appears to coincide with the Beneficiary's function. However, the 
vague statement, without more detail regarding the nature of this duty and the manner in which it is 
performed, leads us to question whether such a duty is managerial in nature. 
The grouping of these three subordinate duties, which appear to be non-managerial, into 70% of the 
Beneficiary's time without further breakdown or delineation, precludes us from determining that the 
Beneficiary is primarily engaged in qualifying managerial duties. As noted by the Director, it is 
unclear whether one stated task commands more (or less) of the Beneficiary's time than the other 
three, thereby rendering it impossible to conclude that collectively, 70% of the Beneficiary's time is 
devoted to duties that are primarily managerial in nature. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director should have focused on the main duty, i.e., "lead, 
manage, and execute workstream/strategic initiatives in the concept research of new business 
opportunities," and not the three subordinate tasks listed thereunder. In addition, the Petitioner 
contends that the chart, which breaks down the Beneficiary's two main duties and the subordinate 
tasks thereunder, satisfied the Director's specific request for a more detailed description of duties, and 
argues that the Director's conclusion that the updated duties are too broadly stated is erroneous. 
Upon review, we concur with the Director's conclusions. While the Petitioner has established that 
developing and deploying its strategic framework is an essential function, its descriptions of the 
Beneficiary's duties do not establish that he will primarily manage that function, as opposed to 
performing sales, design, marketing, customer service and other non-managerial services related to 
that function. For example, the Petitioner's assertion that the Beneficiary will meet with banks, dealers 
and other business counterparts suggests that he will be directly involved in the marketing of its 
5 
services or the solicitation of new accounts. The actual 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), ajf'd, 905 F.2d 
41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's responsibility of leading, managing, and 
executing workstream/strategic initiatives in the concept research of new business opportunities, 
which will require 25% of his time, is a managerial task. The record reflects that meetings with 
business counterparts in a variety of area, as well as the oversight and management of unidentified 
subject matter experts, will require a significant portion of his time within this area of responsibility. 
The Petitioner did not establish how this area of responsibility requires the Beneficiary to perform 
managerial duties. 
The remaining 30% of the Beneficiary's time is claimed to be devoted to assisting leadership in 
understanding emerging trends, and we acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary will 
provide direct support to the Petitioner's executive vice president (EVP), who is also the Petitioner's 
chief strategy officer (CSO). However, the Petitioner provided no additional details regarding the 
manner in which such support is rendered. Moreover, one subordinate task of this duty is identified 
as providing attributed to "supporting the delivery of annual training proposals for all Strategic 
Initiatives team members and ensure proper execution." Based on this statement, it appears that the 
Beneficiary may be involved in or required to provide training, which appears to fall outside the scope 
of the duties of a function manager. According to Matter ofG-Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO 
Nov. 8, 2017), a function manager acts at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with 
respect to the function managed, and it is unlikely that a senior level employee would be directly 
engaged in the training of personnel. Absent additional evidence regarding this stated task, we cannot 
ascertain the exact nature or the extent of the Beneficiary's involvement in the performance of such a 
task, such that we can conclude that this duty, and the related subordinate tasks, are wholly managerial 
in nature. 
While performing non-qualifying tasks necessary to produce a product or service will not 
automatically disqualify a beneficiary as long as those tasks are not the majority of a beneficiary's 
duties, a petitioner still has the burden of establishing that a beneficiary will "primarily" perform 
managerial duties. See section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. Whether a beneficiary is a "function" 
manager turns in part on whether the petitioner has sustained its burden of proving that their duties are 
"primarily" managerial. See Matter ofZ-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016). 
Here, the Petitioner did not adequately document what proportion of the Beneficiary's duties would 
be managerial functions and what proportion would be non-managerial. The Petitioner broadly 
characterizes his duties as managerial, but the lack of specificity is important because many of the 
Beneficiary's duties, as discussed above, do not appear to fall directly under managerial duties as 
defined in the statute. Absent a clear and credible breakdown of the time spent by the Beneficiary 
performing her duties, we cannot determine what proportion of the duties would be managerial, nor 
whether the Beneficiary would be primarily performing the duties of a function manager. IKEA US, 
Inc. v. US. Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 1999). While the Beneficiary would 
exercise discretion over the development and deployment of the Petitioner's strategic framework and 
possess the requisite level of authority with respect to discretionary decision-making, the position 
descriptions do not establish that his actual duties would be primarily managerial in nature. 
6 
B. Staffing and Organizational Structure 
The Petitioner's organizational chart indicates that the Beneficiary would be directly supervised by 
one of the Petitioner's vice presidents, who in tum reported directly to the to the Petitioner's EVP and 
chief strategy officer CSO. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary also 
provides support to the EVP and CSO, who was a member of the Petitioner's Risk Advisory Council. 
The organizational chart provided listed no subordinate employees under the Beneficiary's 
supervision, nor did the Petitioner claim that he would be supervising subordinate personnel. 
The Petitioner repeatedly refers to the "functional managerial nature" of the Beneficiary's proposed 
position, and claims that his management of the strategic initiatives function is essential for identifying 
new business opportunities and innovative technologies to ensure the Petitioner's competitive stance 
in the industry. However, its descriptions of the Beneficiary's duties do not support its claims that this 
is a duty he performs on a constant basis or that developing and deploying strategic initiatives requires 
a significant portion of his time. 
With respect to the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary acts at a senior level with respect to his 
assigned essential function, we acknowledge that he would report to a vice president, who in tum 
reports directly to the Petitioner's EVP and CSO. We farther acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that 
the Beneficiary also "provides support" to the EVP and CSO, and it appears that the Beneficiary has 
the authority to set strategies and goals, which is consistent with the definition of managerial capacity. 
However, the Petitioner did not meet its burden to establish that he would primarily perform these 
higher-level duties. 
As previously noted, the proposed duties of the Beneficiary are broadly stated and do not clarify the 
exact nature of his duties and responsibilities. Given the imprecise descriptions of the Beneficiary's 
tasks, we are unable to ascertain the exact nature of his duties, such that we can determine whether the 
majority of those tasks are managerial. Again, whether a beneficiary is a "function" manager turns in 
part on whether the Petitioner has sustained its burden of proving that his or her duties are "primarily" 
managerial. See Matter of Z-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016). 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that it will employ the Beneficiary as a 
function manager in the United States. 
III. CONCLUSION 
In light of the above conclusions, the petition cannot be approved. Detailed discussion of the 
remaining ground for denial cannot change the outcome of this appeal. Therefore, we reserve the 
remaining issue. 1 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
1 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 
n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
7