dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 16973288 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: WL. 01, 2021 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its general manager under the first­
preference, immigrant visa classification for multinational managers and executives . See 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 and later we dismissed the Petitioner 's 
following appeal. See In Re: 8031126 (AAO Apr. 17, 2020). We agreed with the Director that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate its proposed U.S. employment of the Beneficiary in the claimed 
managerial capacity. Id. We reserved decision on the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner did not 
establish the Beneficiary's managerial role abroad. Id. 1 The Petitioner later filed a motion to reopen 
and a motion to reconsider, both of which we dismissed. See In Re: 12008834 (AAO Dec. 01, 2020). 
The matter is now before us again on a motion to reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing eligibility for the requested benefit. See section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the motion to reconsider. 
I. MOTION TO RECONSIDER 
A motion to reconsider must demonstrate that our prior decision misapplied law or U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy based on the record at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.5(a)(3). We may grant motions that meet these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the 
requested benefit. 
In denying the Petitioner's previous motion to reconsider we pointed to the Beneficiary's proposed 
duties in the United States and addressed its assertion that his duties were similar to those listed in our 
adopted decision Matter of Z-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016). We disagreed 
that the duties in Matter of Z-A-, Inc. were similar to those submitted by the Petitioner in this matter, 
1 Before the Director, the Petitioner asserted the Beneficiary's employment abroad and in the United States in both 
managerial and executive capacities. In support of the first motions, the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary worked 
in the United States in only a managerial capacity. ln support of the current motion, the Petitioner again only contends 
that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity in the United States. We therefore will not consider 
whether the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity in the United States. 
noting that the duties in the adopted decision were only summarized, making this an unconvincing 
comparison. Further, as discussed in our original appeal decision, we indicated that the Petitioner 
provided few details and little supporting documentation to substantiate the Beneficiary's claimed 
duties, despite stating that he had worked in his role in the United States for approximately two years 
prior to the date the petition was filed in May 2017. Similarly, we reiterated that the Petitioner did not 
provide supporting evidence to demonstrate the Beneficiary's oversight and personnel authority over 
claimed subordinate managers, supervisors, and professionals. Likewise, as in our initial appeal 
decision, we discussed the generic duties of the Beneficiary's proposed supervisory subordinates and 
the lack of detail related to their actual performance of their claimed duties. 
In addition, we addressed the Petitioner's contention that the Beneficiary's subordinates qualified as 
professionals, stating it had provided a definition of professionals applicable to Department of Labor 
proceedings and not immigration matters. We also discussed the Petitioner's assertion that the 
Beneficiary would have qualified as a function manager, concluding that it did not describe or 
specifically identify his claimed function or why it was essential. Based on the foregoing analysis, we 
dismissed the Petitioner's motion to reconsider. 
With respect to the Petitioner's motion to reopen, we pointed to new duties submitted on motion and 
stated that they did not resolve previous discrepancies between the Beneficiary's duty descriptions 
addressed in our appeal decision, but only additional inconsistencies. We also indicated that the 
Beneficiary's additional duties on motion did not provide credible examples of his tasks, such as the 
strategies, plans, or programs he put in place. Lastly, we discussed the Petitioner's staffing levels as 
of the date the petition was filed in May 201 7, pointing to supporting documentation reflecting that it 
employed only two operational employees ( one only part-time) at this time leaving uncertainty as to 
whether it had sufficient employees to support the Beneficiary as a personnel manager. 
On motion, the Petitioner points to Department of Labor (DOL) O*Net Online duty descriptions for 
marketing, administration, and sales and operations managers and asserts that these demonstrate that 
the positions subordinate to the Beneficiary would be professional as defined by the regulations. 
Likewise, the Petitioner points to submitted foreign bachelor's degrees provided for the Beneficiary's 
asserted subordinates and contends the evidence demonstrates that he would supervise the work of 
subordinate supervisors and professionals. Further, the Petitioner contends that we failed to consider 
the Beneficiary's supervision of foreign subordinates while employed in the United States. Lastly, the 
Petitioner again indicates that the Beneficiary would have qualified as a function manager. 
First, the Petitioner has not sufficiently addressed one of our primary grounds for dismissing its 
previous motions and appeal, namely the insufficiency and generic nature of the Beneficiary's asserted 
duties. For instance, in both our decisions we discussed at length the Beneficiary's duties and analyzed 
why they were insufficiently vague, indicating they included few details and noting that there was 
little supporting documentation to substantiate his claimed managerial duties. More specifically, we 
discussed how the Petitioner did not specifically articulate or document the plans, goals, or campaigns 
the Beneficiary would implement. Again, the Beneficiary's claimed U.S. duty description is generic 
and could apply to any manager acting in any company in any industry. As we stated in our previous 
decision, this lack of specificity casts doubts on the credibility of the proposed job duties. See Fedin 
Bros. Co., Ltd. v Sava, F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d Cir. 1990) (holding 
2 
that "[s]pecifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily 
managerial in nature"). 
Although we did not expect the Petitioner to articulate and document every managerial-level task 
performed by the Beneficiary, it is reasonable to expect that it would provide sufficient detail and 
documentation to sufficiently corroborate his performance of qualifying duties, particularly since it 
asserts he acted in this role in the United States for approximately two years prior to the date the 
petition was filed. The Petitioner does not address this substantial ground for dismissal on motion, 
nor why our conclusions with respect to the Beneficiary's duties were inconsistent with applicable law 
and policy. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner reiterates on motion that the Beneficiary would qualify as a personnel 
manager supervising subordinate supervisors and professionals. The Petitioner farther points to 
bachelor's degrees held by the Beneficiary's claimed subordinates and DOL O*Net Online 
descriptions for marketing, administration, and sales and operations managers. However, pointing to 
these broad descriptions does not address the lack of specificity in the position descriptions provided 
for the Beneficiary's claimed subordinate supervisors and professionals. As we indicated in our on 
appeal decision, the job-duty descriptions provided for the Beneficiary's asserted subordinates do not 
describe the services they would direct, objectives and procedures they would establish, infrastructure 
they would improve, controls they would develop, or goals and deadlines they would set. The generic 
job descriptions submitted for the Beneficiary's subordinates, and the DOL O*Net Online 
descriptions, could apply to virtually any supervisory position at any company within any industry. 
As we have noted in our previous decisions, the subordinate duty descriptions do not credibly 
demonstrate the Beneficiary's proposed supervision and control of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees. In addition, as we have previously emphasized, the Petitioner has also 
submitted no supporting documentation to substantiate the Beneficiary's oversight and personnel 
authority over claimed subordinate managers, supervisors, and professionals. Once again, the 
Petitioner does not address this material ground for dismissal in support of the current motion or 
articulate why our conclusions were inconsistent with applicable law and policy. 
Therefore, regardless of whether the Beneficiary's subordinates hold bachelor's degrees, the Petitioner 
has not submitted sufficient duty descriptions for these positions to demonstrate that they are 
supervisory or professional positions as defined by the regulations. 2 The Petitioner still does not 
address this insufficiency despite the opportunity to remedy it on appeal, in support of its previous 
motions, and in support of the current motion. The Petitioner also does not specifically articulate why 
the duties of the positions subordinate to the Beneficiary require bachelor's degrees or provide any 
other supporting evidence to demonstrate that these positions required a bachelor's degree prior to 
2 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. 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"). Section IO I (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. 
3 
entry, such as job postings or other similar evidence. Generic duty descriptions and educational 
requirements from DOL O*Net Online are not sufficient to establish that the positions subordinate to 
the Beneficiary are supervisory or professional as defined by the regulations. 
Likewise, the Petitioner does not address our previous discussion of its apparently limited staffing as 
of the date the petition was filed. In our appellate decision we indicated that the Petitioner did not 
establish sufficient staffing or organizational structure to employ the Beneficiary as a personnel 
manager, in part because the evidence reflected that only one of the company's two operational-level 
employees worked on a full-time basis. We also noted that the record did not demonstrate the 
Petitioner's full-time employment of all its operational-level employees at the time of the petition and 
stated that the apparent part-time employment of half of its operational staff at the time of filing left 
uncertainty as to the Beneficiary's proposed employment as a personnel manager. See section 
10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act (requiring a personnel manager to primarily supervise and control the 
work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees). 
The Petitioner does not directly address this lack of operational staffing in the United States on motion, 
but now contends that we failed to consider foreign employees that supported its operations and the 
Beneficiary's position. For instance, the Petitioner points to 26 employees working for the foreign 
employer abroad and contends that they support its operations and the Beneficiary's managerial 
position in the United States. However, it is not clear how we failed to consider foreign employees 
supporting the Petitioner's operations and the Beneficiary's claimed managerial position when this 
assertion is only now being offered for the first time in support of its second set of motions. We 
generally do not consider claims for the first time on appeal or motion. See Matter of J-Y-C-, 24 I&N 
Dec. 260, 261 n.1 (BIA 2007). A petitioner also may not make material changes to a filing to make 
an apparently deficient petition confirm with requirements. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1998). For the foregoing reasons, we did not err in our previous decision by failing 
to consider claimed foreign employees engaged by the Petitioner. 
Lastly, on motion, the Petitioner reiterates its contention that the Beneficiary would qualify as a 
function manager stating that he "carries an essential function within the organization, dealing with 
Governmental authorities, Banks, Hiring and firing personnel, is the liaison between the U.S. and the 
Parent Company, supervises budget and has financial duties." In our previous decision, we stated that 
the Petitioner did not describe or identify the specific function that the Beneficiary would manage, nor 
did it establish the function as essential. See Matter of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 3 (AAO 
Nov. 8, 2017). The Petitioner's assertions on motion do not address this previous conclusion. The 
Petitioner has not clearly defined and explained the Beneficiary's specific function, nor how it is 
essential, but only submits a generic description of a managerial role that could apply to any situation. 
As such, we conclude that our previous determination that the Beneficiary would not qualify as a 
function manager was correct and not inconsistent with applicable law and policy. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner's additional assertions in support of this motion to reconsider 
do not demonstrate that our previous dismissal of its motions was inconsistent with applicable law and 
policy, nor have they demonstrated the Beneficiary's eligibility for the benefit sought. Therefore, the 
motion to reconsider must be dismissed. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed 
4