dismissed EB-1C Case: Automotive Parts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8031126 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 17, 2020 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner, describing itself as an importer and exporter of automobile parts, seeks to permanently 
employ the Beneficiary as its general manager in the United States under the first preference immigrant 
classification for multinational executives or managers . Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United 
States . The Director further determined the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary acted 
in a managerial or executive capacity in his former position abroad. 
On appeal, the Petitioner points to submitted duty descriptions, educational credentials, and wage tax 
documentation related to the Beneficiary's U.S . subordinates and contends that he would supervise 
professionals. The Petitioner also asserts that the Beneficiary's U.S. duties were sufficiently detailed 
to demonstrate his managerial capacity and states that the Director overemphasized its size in denying 
the petition. In addition , the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary acted in a similar managerial 
capacity in his former position abroad. 
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. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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(j)(3). 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The first issue we will address is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary would act in 
a managerial capacity in the United States. The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary would 
be employed in an executive capacity. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to whether the Beneficiary 
would be employed in a managerial 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, 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(44)(A). 
When examining the managerial capacity of a given beneficiary, we will review the petitioner's 
description of the job duties. The petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly describe the 
duties to be performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are in a managerial 
capacity. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)( 5). Beyond the required description of the job duties, we examine the 
company's organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence 
of other employees to relieve a 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 a business. 
Accordingly, we will discuss evidence regarding the Beneficiary's job duties along with evidence of 
the nature of the Petitioner's business, its staffing levels, and its organizational structure. 
A. Duties 
Based on the statutory definition of managerial capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the 
Beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 
1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). The Petitioner must also 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); 
Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
The Petitioner stated that it "is in the business of [the] wholesale trade of machinery, parts, accessories 
and supplies [sic] of vehicles." The Petitioner listed the following duties for the Beneficiary, as general 
manager, in a letter provided in support of the petition: 
2 
1. Ensures that the business develops aggressive but realistic plans, which will provide 
for long-term business success and profitability, provide and/or maintain industry 
leadership status in the market place via "best" service levels. ( 4 hrs) 
2. Ensures that budgeted plans are implemented and the revenue and network 
fees/contributions are achieved in accordance with those plans, and controllable 
costs are maintained within budget. ( 4 hrs) 
3. Analyzes the market and develops and implements plans accordingly in the area of 
new products or product extensions in order to improve revenue, productivity and 
profitability. (4 hrs) 
4. Ensures that an optimum balance is achieved and maintained between service levels 
and cost. ( 4 hrs) 
5. Attend weekly conferences (in person and telephonically) between US company 
and Parent Company and discuss short-term objectives as they pertain to long-term 
goals, and to evaluate financial performance of US Company as it relates to 
profitability. (4 hrs) 
6. Represents ( or assures representation of) corporation to the various audiences 
influencing its operations in order to maximize the service level provide [sic]; 
which can in tum, be translated into increase[d] service levels to the market. (4 hrs) 
7. Actively promotes and improves [the Petitioner's] image in the market place and 
ensures that all marketing and promotional campaigns and materials achieve their 
planned effect within the overall corporate image. 
8. Analyzes the adequacy and appropriateness of the organizational and legal structure 
in order to propose alternatives. ( 4 hrs) 
9. Ensures all actions are planned/conducted within prevailing legal parameters. 
Coordinates with managers under her [sic] supervision to maintain proper 
communications on all facets of the business. ( 4 hrs) 
10. The role requires being able to quickly identify the commercial, operational and 
financial issue requiring action and solutions. (4 hrs) 
The Petitioner also submitted additional statements regarding the Beneficiary's activities under the 
general categories of "hire employees," "verify performance before promoting," and "firing 
employees with integrity." This section indicated that the Beneficiary would take into account a 
variety of typical managerial considerations such as "clearly outlining workplace expectations," 
having "honest conversations about where [employees] are failing," running "thorough background 
checks on all potential candidates," being "careful to stick to the book on the Company termination 
policies," and laying down "objectives and broad policies." 
Later, in a notice of intent to deny (NOID), the Director indicated that the Beneficiary's U.S. duty 
description "was vague and failed to disclose what underlying duties [he] performed for the petitioner" 
and it requested "all specific daily duties." 
In response, the Petitioner submitted the following additional duty description for the Beneficiary: 
• Coordinates and directs the corporation, supervising managers of other areas and 
fulfilling the goals of each one. - 30% of his time. 
3 
• Prepares and manages the company's policies, contributing to the development of 
the company's short and long-term goals, in accordance with the objectives of [the 
Petitioner]. - 15% of his time. 
• Review the analysis of the activities, costs and operations of the company to 
determine the progress made towards the objectives set forth for the company. -
10% of his time. 
• In its absolute discretion, supervise all the financial aspects of the sale and 
marketing operation of the corporation, including the direct supervision of the 
reception of fonds and the acquisition of debts. - 15% of his time. 
• Meet with the executives of other companies in order to expand the operations of 
[the Petitioner], making strategic alliances that allow the company to meet the 
established goals. - 20% of his time. 
• Supervise and maintain constant control of the financial results of all the company's 
operations. - 10% of his time. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner emphasized the Beneficiary's supervision of his subordinates, noting that 
he was responsible for "supervising the assignment of different projects," "evaluating the performance 
of area supervisors," and ensuring "compliance with goals and objectives established by the 
company." 
First, the Petitioner submitted two conflicting duty descriptions, one in support of the petition and 
another in response to the NOID. For instance, the later duty description indicated that the Beneficiary 
would devote 30% of his time to coordinating and directing the corporation, supervising managers, 
and fulfilling the goals of each, while his initial duty description did not mention this duty and it 
equally distributed his duties into ten categories. Further, the Beneficiary's initial duty description 
discussed service levels, service costs and extensions, "best service levels," and new service levels; 
however, the duty description submitted in response to the NOID did not mention services at all. 
Likewise, the Beneficiary's duty description provided with the petition discussed weekly conference 
calls with the parent company pertaining to long-term goals and objectives, whereas the NOID duty 
description does not include this as a task. Although we acknowledge that changes to the Beneficiary's 
duty description from the time of the petition to the NOID response were likely, given the Director's 
request for additional detail, it is questionable that the Petitioner submitted a completely different duty 
description in response to the Director's request for more clarity. This material discrepancy leaves 
substantial uncertainty as to the actual daily duties of the Beneficiary. The Petitioner must resolve 
inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
In addition, both of the Beneficiary's duty descriptions are generic and did not sufficiently convey his 
actual daily tasks in the United States. The Beneficiary's duty descriptions include several generic 
duties, such as stating that he "coordinates and directs the corporation," fulfills goals, determines "the 
progress made towards the objectives set for the company," and supervises "all the financial aspects 
of the sales and marketing operation." These duties could apply to any general manager in any 
business and industry and they do not sufficiently substantiate the Beneficiary's asserted role; in fact, 
neither duty description includes specifics related to the company's actual business or industry. The 
Petitioner provided insufficient examples and little supporting documentation to demonstrate the 
Beneficiary's performance of qualifying duties, such as "realistic plans" he developed, "budgeted 
4 
plans" he implemented, new services, service levels, or extensions he oversaw, long-term goals he set, 
or marketing and promotional campaigns he put in place. Indeed, along with the Beneficiary's initial 
duty description, the Petitioner submitted several vague suggestions for approaches any manager 
would be advised to take, including "clearly outlining workplace expectations," having honest 
conversations with subordinates, running "thorough background checks," and using promotions to 
"motivate your employees and succeed." 
Similarly, the Beneficiary's duty description provided in response to the NOID was also overly broad 
and did not provide detail and documentation to substantiate the company policies he prepared, the 
"financial aspects of the sales and marketing operation" he supervised, the debts he managed, 
executives from other companies he coordinated with, or the strategic alliances he established. The 
lack of detail and documentation regarding the Beneficiary's asserted managerial capacity is 
particularly notable given that the Petitioner asserts that he has acted in this role in United States since 
August 2015. 1 
Further, the Petitioner emphasized the Beneficiary's superv1s10n of subordinate managers, his 
"assignment of different projects," and his evaluation of their performance on these projects. 
However, the record includes no evidence of the Beneficiary's supervision of subordinate managers 
or his delegation of tasks to other subordinates within the organization. The Petitioner has not 
submitted a sufficiently detailed duty description describing the Beneficiary's actual day-to-day 
managerial duties to credibly establish that he would devote his time primarily to qualifying tasks. 
Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily managerial 
in nature, otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. 
Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 
1990). 
Even though the Beneficiary holds a senior position within the organization, the fact that he will 
manage or direct the business does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as a 
multinational manager within the meaning of section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. The Beneficiary may 
exercise discretion over the Petitioner's day-to-day operations and possess the requisite level of 
authority with respect to discretionary decision-making; however, the position description alone is 
insufficient to establish that his actual duties would be primarily managerial in nature. 
B. Staffing and Personnel Manager 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
capacity, we take into account the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of its overall purpose 
and stage of development. See section 101 (a)( 44 )( C) of the Act. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary would oversee subordinate supervisors and professionals. 
The statutory definition of"managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. Personnel managers are required to primarily 
supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. Contrary 
to the common understanding of the word "manager," the statute plainly states that a "first line 
1 The petitioner was filed on May 23, 2017. 
5 
supervisor is not considered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's 
supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are professional." Id. If a beneficiary directly 
supervises other employees, the beneficiary must also have the authority to hire and fire those 
employees, or recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2). As 
the Petitioner does not assert that the Beneficiary would act as a function manager, we will only 
analyze whether he would qualify as a personnel manager as claimed. 
The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart reflecting that the Beneficiary reported to a board of 
directors and indicating that he supervised a sales and operations manager, an administrative manager, 
and a marketing manager. The chart farther showed that the sales and operations manager oversaw a 
sales representative and a vacant customer service employee position, while the administrative 
manager was shown to supervise an administrative assistant. Lastly, the chart indicated that the 
marketing manager would oversee a vacant marketing analyst position. 
The Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the Beneficiary would act as a personnel manager 
supervising subordinate supervisors. First, the submitted organizational chart indicated that the 
marketing manager did not have a subordinate; therefore, this employee was not established as a 
supervisor subordinate to the Beneficiary. Overall, the Petitioner's asserted organizational chart 
included four managers, including the Beneficiary, but only two operational level employees. 
Meanwhile, a provided IRS Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement specific to the claimed administrative 
assistant showed this employee earned only $8371.98 during all of 2017, suggesting that this lone 
claimed subordinate of the administrative manager did not work on a folltime basis. This leaves 
question as to whether the administrative manager would act in a supervisory capacity subordinate to 
the Beneficiary as claimed. Lastly, the chart also indicated that the asserted sales and operations 
manager was not supported by a customer service employee, as this position was left vacant, indicating 
that this asserted manager was more likely performing services rather than acting as a manager of 
operational level employees. 
In addition, the duty descriptions of the Beneficiary's claimed subordinate managers were not 
sufficiently detailed to substantiate that they acted, or would act, in supervisory capacities. For 
instance, the duties of the claimed sales and operations manager did not provide sufficient detail to 
corroborate his role, such as the services he directed, the work schedules he set, objectives and 
procedures he established, customers he worked with, trainings he planned, sales and service programs 
he developed, or technological advances and quality control he managed. In fact, it is not clear from 
the evidence submitted what services were being performed by the Petitioner and its employees, what 
it sold, or what technological advances were relevant to its business. The duties of the asserted 
administrative manager we likewise generic, noting her planning of budgets, improvement of 
infrastructure, establishing "countable controls," "controlling human resources," and setting goals and 
deadlines. But again, these vague duties could apply to any manager in any business and they do not 
credibly establish her position as a subordinate manager, including detailing the budgets she planned, 
infrastructure she improved, controls she established, human resource functions she oversaw, or goals 
and deadlines she set. In fact, it is not clear how the administrative manager was performing these 
tasks as a supervisor while only overseeing one part-time administrative assistant. Therefore, for the 
foregoing reasons, the Petitioner did not sufficiently establish that the Beneficiary would act as a 
personnel manager through his oversight of subordinate managers. 
6 
Next, we will analyze the Petitioner's contention that the Beneficiary would qualify as a personnel 
manager based on his supervision of subordinate professionals. To determine whether a beneficiary 
manages professional employees, we must evaluate whether the subordinate positions require a 
baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of endeavor. C/ 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) 
(defining "profession" to mean "any occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign 
equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation"). Section 10l(a)(32) of the Act, 
states that "[t]he term profession shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, 
physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academies, or 
seminaries." Therefore, we must focus on the level of education required by the position, rather than 
the degree held by subordinate employee. The possession of a bachelor's degree by a subordinate 
employee does not automatically lead to the conclusion that an employee is employed in a professional 
capacity. 
The Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the Beneficiary would qualify as a personnel 
manager based on the supervision of subordinate professionals as claimed. As discussed, the 
Petitioner submitted generic and non-credible duty descriptions for the Beneficiary's claimed 
subordinates that do not sufficiently demonstrate the true nature of these positions, and in tum, whether 
they require a bachelor's degree. Further, the Petitioner does not describe why the positions 
subordinate to the Beneficiary require bachelor's degrees, but only vaguely references on appeal 
Department of Labor O*NET online descriptions for marketing, administrative, and sales and 
operations managers. 
However, the O*NET duty descriptions and typical educational requirements for these positions are 
not relevant to the actual positions within the Petitioner's organization and are not convincing in 
demonstrating whether these specific positions are professional as defined by the regulations. Here, 
since the Petitioner did not credibly establish the duties of these positions and the knowledge required 
for them, we cannot conclude that they are more likely than not professional. For instance, it is not 
clear from the duty descriptions or the evidence submitted what services are overseen by the sales and 
operations manager, what the administrative manager actually does on a daily basis within the context 
of the business, or what marketing activities the marketing manager directs. As such, the Petitioner 
has not sufficiently established that the Beneficiary would act as a manager of professional 
subordinates. 
Lastly, the Petitioner appears to suggest on appeal that the Director erred by overemphasizing its small 
size in denying the petition. The Petitioner correctly observes that we must take into account the 
reasonable needs of the organization and that a company's size alone may not be the only factor in 
determining whether the Beneficiary is or would be employed in a managerial capacity. See section 
10l(a)(44)(C) of the Act. However, it is appropriate for us to consider the size of the petitioning 
company in conjunction with other relevant factors, such as the absence of employees who would 
perform the non-managerial operations of the company or a company that does not conduct business 
in a regular and continuous manner. Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir. 2006); Systronics 
Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). The size ofacompanymaybe especially relevant 
when USCIS notes discrepancies in the record. See Systronics, 153 F. Supp. 2d at 15. 
We do not concur with the Petitioner's contention that the Director, or that we, have solely based our 
decisions on the relatively small size of the company. We have discussed at length the generic and 
7 
vague nature of the Beneficiary's duty descriptions and their conflicting nature, including the lack of 
supporting documentation to substantiate him acting in his purported role. Further, the Petitioner 
submitted similarly non-specific duty descriptions for his claimed subordinate managers that did not 
sufficiently substantiate these positions. Further, its organizational chart included few operational 
employees to sustain the business and its asserted level of managers. It is also notable that the record 
includes no documentary evidence of the Beneficiary acting as a personnel manager in relation to his 
claimed subordinates, delegating non-qualifying duties, or promulgating goals and policies to his 
asserted subordinates. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would act in a 
managerial capacity in the United States. 
IV. REMAINING ISSUE 
Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve its appellate arguments regarding whether the Beneficiary acted in a managerial 
or executive capacity abroad. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and 
agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the 
results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining 
to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8