dismissed EB-1C Case: Book Publishing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 25785427 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 06, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Multinational Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, a book publisher, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its general manager 
under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational executives or managers . See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S .C. § 1153(b)(l)(C) . This 
classification allows a U.S. employer to permanently transfer a qualified foreign employee to the United 
States to work in a managerial or executive capacity . 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that (1) the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity, (2) the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity , and (3) 
the Petitioner had been doing business in the United States for at least one year at the time of filing. The 
matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo . Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . Upon de novo 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(j)(3). 
The statute defines "managerial capacity" as 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. 
"Executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the organization; 
establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; exercises wide latitude 
in discretionary decision-making; and receives only general supervision or direction from higher-level 
executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. Section 101 (a)( 44 )(B) of the 
Act. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The primary issue we will address is whether the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary will 
be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. The Petitioner has claimed 
that the Beneficiary's offered position of general manager meets the requirements for executive 
capacity, and alternatively claims that the position is managerial in nature because it will involve 
supervision of professional staff and management of the Petitioner's essential function. 
To establish that a beneficiary is eligible for immigrant classification as a multinational manager or 
executive, a petitioner must show that the beneficiary will perform all four of the high-level 
responsibilities set forth in the statutory definitions at section 10l(a)(44)(A) or (B) of the Act. If a 
petitioner establishes that the offered position meets all four elements set forth in either statutory 
definition, the petitioner must then prove that the beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial 
or executive 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). 
In determining whether the beneficiary's duties will be primarily managerial or executive, we consider 
the required description of the job duties, the company's organizational structure, the duties of the 
beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other personnel to relieve the beneficiary from 
performing operational duties, the nature of the business, and any other factors that will contribute to 
understanding the beneficiary's actual duties and role in the business. 
A. Job Duties 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5) requires that a petitioner "clearly describe the duties to be 
performed." At the time of filing, the Petitioner submitted an overview of the Beneficiary's proposed 
duties as general manager of its children's book publishing business. This description was repeated 
in its entirety in the Director's decision and will not be repeated here. Briefly, the Petitioner indicated 
that the Beneficiary would have 12 different areas ofresponsibility with each requiring 5% to 10% of 
his time. These responsibilities included: strategic planning; finance and accounting; setting company 
2 
rules and policies; setting up the company's organizational and departmental structure; establishing 
the chain of supervision; determining each departments' function; defining job duties and objectives 
for subordinate staff and evaluating their performance; setting up guidelines for cooperation between 
departments; human resources planning and policy-making, including policies related to hiring/firing 
and compensation; representing the company by finalizing contract decisions and signing contracts; 
problem solving through regular meetings with subordinate managers and key employees; and 
advancing the company's mission and objectives. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director advised the Petitioner that this description of the 
Beneficiary's proposed position was overly broad and provided little insight into the nature of the 
actual day-to-day job duties he would perform. We agree with this assessment. Many of the 
responsibilities attributed to the position generally paraphrased the statutory definition of executive 
capacity by focusing on the Beneficiary's responsibility for establishing the company's policies, 
strategies and objectives, his responsibility for directing the overall management of the company, and 
his discretionary decision-making authority. However, reciting a beneficiary's vague job 
responsibilities or broadly-cast business objectives is not sufficient. Specifics are clearly an important 
indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily executive or managerial in nature, otherwise 
meeting the definitions would simply be a matter ofreiterating the regulations. 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). 
Here, the position description was so vague it could have applied to any senior-level position at any 
company; it contained no references specific to the Petitioner's book publishing business or to specific 
subordinate positions or departments within the company, nor did it otherwise provide a probative 
explanation of the Beneficiary's expected day-to-day tasks. Further, several of the duties appear to 
describe the duties of an employee responsible for setting up a brand-new company that is still in the 
process of organizing its initial operations. Given that the Petitioner indicates that it has been operating 
in the United States since 2019, it is unclear why it would reasonably require the Beneficiary to, for 
example, spend up to 30% of his time determining and establishing the company's overall structure, 
chain of supervision and departmental responsibilities. 
Finally, the Petitioner's submission of a vague job description was compounded by the fact it did not 
submit an organizational chart or otherwise describe the company's current structure or staffing at the 
time of filing. Therefore, the Petitioner's statements that the Beneficiary would be performing the 
claimed duties within the context of a multi-tiered structure that includes department managers, key 
personnel and other staff were not corroborated. Overall, the Petitioner's initial submission did not 
contain the necessary detail or an adequate explanation of the Beneficiary's expected day-to-day 
activities within the context of its business. 
The Director provided the Petitioner with notice of these deficiencies and requested that the Petitioner 
provide a letter "clearly describing the beneficiary's proposed duties." The Director specified that the 
letter should describe "the specific daily tasks that are involved with the completion of each duty and 
the percentage of time to be spent on each." The Petitioner acknowledged this request and submitted 
a letter in response to the RFE. In its response, it attempted to provide additional explanation as to 
how the offered position qualifies under the statutory definitions of managerial or executive capacity 
at section 10l(a)(44)(A) or (B) of the Act. However, it did so without providing any additional details 
regarding the Beneficiary's day-to-day job duties. 
3 
First, the Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary would be "supervising and managing the essential 
function of our company, namely, the editing, publishing, sales and marketing of our children's books" 
as well as overseeing all other company functions. The Petitioner emphasized that the position would 
be that of a function manager because the Beneficiary would be: (1) managing the essential function 
of the company by "cooperating with authors and illustrators, editors, printing, publishing and sales 
of original English editions of children's books"; (2) functioning at a senior level within the company 
and with respect to the function managed; and (3) exercising discretion over the day-to-day operation 
of the function by controlling "a broad range of activities associated with the management of the 
business of publishing." 
The Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary qualifies as a "professional manager" because he will 
be supervising a deputy manager and a financial department employee who possess master's degrees, 
two vice-general managers based in China who hold bachelor's degrees, and authors, illustrators, and 
designers who "are all considered to be professionals." Finally, the Petitioner stated that he "is 
functioning primarily [in] an executive capacity" in which his duties "consist of the management 
through direction of his sub-managers, organizing and implementing all programs, coordinating, 
directing and implementing all service programs for our business." 
This letter did not address or overcome the deficiencies in the initial job description addressed above, 
and it lacked the specific information the Director requested regarding the Beneficiary's actual job 
duties within the context of its business. Conclusory assertions regarding the Beneficiary's 
employment capacity are not sufficient. The actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the 
employment. Fedin Bros. 724 F. Supp. at 1108, ajf'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Here, the Petitioner 
has not provided the necessary detail or an adequate explanation of the Beneficiary's activities in the 
course of his daily routine. 
The fact that the Beneficiary has the authority to manage or direct a company and holds a senior 
position in the company's organizational chart does not necessarily establish eligibility for 
classification as multinational manager or executive as defined in the statute. By statute, eligibility 
for this classification requires that the duties of a position be "primarily" managerial or executive. 
Although the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary would primarily perform the high-level duties 
described at sections 10l(a)(44)(A) or (B) of the Act, it has not met its burden to support this claim 
with a detailed job description and other relevant supporting evidence. 
B. Staffing and Structure 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary directs and manages both the company and its essential 
function through subordinate managers and other staff, and that it has sufficient staff to relieve the 
Beneficiary from significant involvement in non-executive and non-managerial duties. However, as 
discussed further below, it has not provided sufficient evidence of its staffing and structure from the 
time of filing. The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit 
have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). 
The Petitioner stated on the Form 1-140 that it had six employees as of April 2021. The Petitioner did 
not submit an organizational chart, an employee list, or otherwise describe its staffing or structure. To 
4 
document its staffing levels, the Petitioner provided copies of its California state quarterly wage 
reports for the first three quarters of 2020 but did not provide evidence documenting its staffing at the 
time of filing. In the first nine months of 2020, the Petitioner's staffing levels varied, and ranged from 
0 employees in April and May 2020 (which the Petitioner attributes to a temporary COVID-19 related 
closure) to six employees in September 2020. 
In the RFE, the Director requested a list of all employees and contractors by name and job title. The 
Director also requested a summary of their duties, their educational levels, their salaries, and whether 
they work full- or part-time. In addition, the Director requested an organizational chart or diagram 
showing the company's overall structure and staffing levels, and evidence of salaries, wages and other 
payments made to employees and contractors for 2021, noting that the submitted evidence should 
document the company's structure and staffing starting at the time of filing. 
The Petitioner's response included an organizational chart which depicts the Beneficiary as general 
manager and shows that he supervises a deputy manager, a financial department employee, and a U.S. 
sales and distribution center inl I that is operated by a contractor 
The chart does not identify any additional U.S.-based staff or include the requested summary of job 
duties for the two U.S. employees, nor did the Petitioner provide the requested employee list. The 
block on the chart for the deputy manager position states "authors, illustrators, designers, editors, 
manuscripts, copyrights, online sales" with no further explanation from the Petitioner. 
The Petitioner provided copies of its IRS Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, indicating that it paid 
a total of eight employees in 2021. This evidence documented payments to the deputy manager and 
the financial department employee identified on the organizational chart. The Petitioner provided no 
additional information regarding the other six individuals it employed in 2021, and based on submitted 
payroll statements, only one of those six employees I I remained with the company in 2022. 
In addition, four of the eight employees who received Forms W-2 in 2021 earned wages between 
$6000 and $9000 and were likely employed for only part of the year. Although requested by the 
Director, the Petitioner did not provide copies of any additional state quarterly wage reports or 
quarterly federal tax returns for 2021. Therefore, the record does not contain evidence corroborating 
the Petitioner's staffing levels at the time of filing. 
For 2022, the Petitioner provided monthly payroll statements showing: payments to the Beneficiary 
for the months of January through May; payments to the vice general manager, the financial 
department employee, and I I from January through April; and payments to two other 
employees, one who received wages in March and April, and one who appeared to be hired in April 
2022. As the Petitioner provided only the Beneficiary's pay statement for May 2022, it is unclear 
whether it continued to employ the other staff at the time of the RFE response. As noted, the only 
U.S. employees who appeared on the organizational chart submitted in response to the RFE were the 
Beneficiary, the deputy manager, and the financial department employee. 
As a result of these evidentiary deficiencies, the Petitioner has not adequately documented its staffing 
levels, organizational structure, or the activities performed by subordinate U.S. employees at the time 
of filing or at the time of adjudication. 
5 
The Petitioner has consistently indicated that it relies on contractors to perform certain functions. Its 
response to the RFE included a copy of its "Full Service Sales Representation and Distribution 
Agreement" with I I ( along with evidence of services provided by this 
contractor), and copies of its book contracts with authors and illustrators, as well as copies of Forms 
1099 showing payments to some of these individuals. 1 
The Petitioner's organizational chart also depicts "supporting departments of parent company in 
China" including a printing and logistics department and an editing department, each led by a "vice 
general manager" (identified as I I respectively). The Petitioner stated in its letter in 
response to the RFE that these two employees supervise a total of 14 employees in the parent 
company's foreign language center and printing and logistics department "whose duties directly 
support the U.S. subsidiary under the supervision of [the Beneficiary]." However, it did not 
specifically identify these lower-level foreign employees, provide their job titles or duties, or provide 
corroborating evidence of their employment. 
Further, the record contains unexplained inconsistencies regarding the positions held by I 
Owithin the parent company. First, the foreign parent company's organizational chart submitted at 
the time of filing identifies! las staff members within the I !Customer 
Dept." which is depicted as a sub-department of the "business department" with five employees; it did 
not depict their positions as managerial or supervisory. The foreign entity organizational chart 
submitted in response to the RFE depictsOas a deputy general manager supervising a marketing 
department and a printing and shipping department with a combined total of 24 employees, andl I 
as a deputy general manager supervising a "basic education publishing center" and a "retail product 
publishing center" with a combined total of 3 7 employees in five sub-departments. The Petitioner 
offered no explanation for the significant differences between the two organizational charts and the 
placement of these two employees within them. 
Second, the Petitioner's initial evidence included the foreign entity's monthly payroll rosters for 
October through December 2020. These documents, like the initial organizational chart, identify 
I las staff within the "customer department" who earned a monthly salary of RMB 8400. 
The RFE response included the foreign entity's monthly payroll rosters (with different formatting) for 
the period April 2020 through January 2022. These documents indicate thatl learned 
a monthly salary of RMB 15,000 throughout this period. The Petitioner did not explain why the 
foreign entity would have two completely different payroll rosters for the same months. The 
inconsistencies in the foreign entity's organizational charts and payroll evidence are material and the 
Petitioner did not attempt to resolve these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Based on these unresolved inconsistencies, the Petitioner has not met its burden to document the nature 
or scope of support the U.S. entity receives from its parent company's staff, nor has it specifically 
identified or supported its claims regarding which employees provide services to the Petitioner and 
the services they provide. 
1 The Director observed that the number of Form 1099s the Petitioner issued to authors and illustrators was inconsistent 
with the number ofbook contracts and publishing agreements it provided. We note that many of the authors who published 
with the Petitioner reside outside the United States and therefore would not necessarily receive a Form 1099. 
6 
In sum, the record supports the Director's conclusions that the Petitioner did not provide the required 
detailed description of the Beneficiary's proposed job duties in the United States, probative evidence 
corroborating its staffing levels and structure in the United States at the time of filing through 
adjudication, or sufficient probative evidence to establish how the foreign entity's staff support the 
Petitioner's U.S.-based book publishing business. All this evidence is critical in evaluating the 
Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the 
United States, and we cannot reach a favorable determination on this issue in its absence. 
Further, although the Director specifically addressed the deficient job description and the lack of 
supporting evidence to corroborate the Petitioner's staffing, the Petitioner has not addressed these 
issues on appeal. Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that 
it will employ the Beneficiary in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. We will 
nevertheless address the Petitioner's appellate arguments below. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the previously submitted evidence is sufficient to establish that 
the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity. The statutory definition of "managerial 
capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function managers." See section 10l(a)(44)(A) 
of the Act. Personnel managers are required to primarily supervise and control the work of other 
supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. 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. 
The Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary will supervise and control the work of subordinate 
supervisory and professional personnel and that the Director erred by concluding he will not be 
employed as a personnel manager. The Petitioner's organizational chart identifies only two U.S. 
employees who report to the Beneficiary and does not depict them as supervisors. The Petitioner 
provided evidence that its deputy manager and its financial department employee both have master's 
degrees and emphasized that, as a publishing business, it reasonably has a need for professional 
employees and contractors. 
To determine whether a Beneficiary supervises professionals, we focus on the level of education 
required by the position, rather than the degree held by the subordinate employee. Cf 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"). 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 submitted position 
descriptions or requirements for the employees who report to the Beneficiary in support of its claim 
that he will supervise professionals; its assertion that any position in the publishing field reasonably 
requires a degree is insufficient. 
Moreover, even if we determined that the Beneficiary would allocate some portion his time to 
supervising professionals, this would not lead to a conclusion that he primarily performs managerial 
duties consistent with the definition at section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. As discussed above, the 
Petitioner has not submitted a detailed description of the Beneficiary's duties which demonstrates his 
actual tasks or how much time he would spend on the supervision and control of subordinate staff 
7 
The Petitioner also repeats is previous assertion that the Beneficiary will be employed as a function 
manager. 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. Here, the Petitioner did not 
clearly describe the Beneficiary's duties in support of its claim that he would primarily provide 
services as a function manager. The broad job description provided contains no references to a 
function to be managed by the Beneficiary or the duties to be performing in managing such function. 
In addition, 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 of Z-A-, Inc., 
Adopted Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016). 
Further, in addition to clearly articulating the function to be managed and the Beneficiary's duties, 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). The Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary manages its core function of "cooperating with 
authors and illustrators, editing, printing, publishing and sales of original English editions of 
Children's books." However, as noted the Beneficiary's job description does not articulate how he 
primarily manages this function. 
Regardless of whether the Beneficiary is claimed to be a personnel manager, a function manager, or 
an executive, the Petitioner must establish how he would be relieved from significant involvement in 
the company's day-to-day administrative and operational tasks; it is not sufficient for the Petitioner to 
rely on an overly broad position description and an organizational chart depicting the Beneficiary in a 
senior pos1t10n. Here, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained the Beneficiary's duties, 
corroborated its claimed staffing levels, or provided duty descriptions for its U.S. employees in support 
of its claim that the Beneficiary would more likely than not perform primarily managerial or executive 
duties consistent with the statutory definitions. 
The Petitioner maintains that Matter of Z-A- requires USCIS to consider the support provided by staff 
of a related foreign entity. While we have also considered the Petitioner's claims that it works closely 
with its parent company's personnel to carry out its publishing activities, it is the Petitioner's burden 
to identify those personnel, describe their duties performed in support of the U.S. entity, and 
corroborate the details of their employment with the foreign entity. Due to the inconsistencies and 
deficiencies discussed above, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would be employed 
in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. 
III. RESERVED ISSUES 
As noted, the Director also concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary has been 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity, and that the Petitioner was doing business in 
the United States for at least one year at the time it filed the petition. Because the identified basis for 
denial is dis positive of the appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate 
8 
arguments regarding the remaining grounds for denial. 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). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that it will employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity in the United States. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9