dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Solutions

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-D-S- LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 28, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, described as a provider of "printing, fulfillment, customer service & outsourcing 
solutions," seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as director of its solution design department 
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. § l 153(b)(l)(C). This 
classification allows a U.S. employer to permanently transfer a qualified foreign employee to the United 
States to work in an executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive 
capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred by mischaracterizing detailed job descriptions 
as "broad, vague and generalized." 
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. § 204.50)(3). 
Matter of A-D-S-LLC 
11. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad 
in a managerial or executive capacity. The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was 
employed in an executive capacity. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to whether the Beneficiary has 
been 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). 
Based on the statutory definitions of managerial and executive 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). Second, the Petitioner must 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); Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
When examining the managerial or executive capacity of a given beneficiary, we will look to the 
petitioner's description of the job duties, 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. 
The Beneficiary was a project manager at the Petitioner's affiliates in Russia and Germany from 
January 2012 until she arrived in the United States as an L-lA nonimmigrant in March 2014. The 
Petitioner stated: 
In this position, [the Beneficiary] ... directed the development and preparation of [the 
organization's] business models and solutions for potential ... customers in accordance 
with their requirements, thus leading the solution design function of the organization. 
She was responsible for monitoring project activities . . . . She developed expertise 
with data and business analysis ... and she directed and managed project changes .... 
. . . [T]he Beneficiary had managerial responsibility for a number of ... employees in 
the IT, Logistics, Legal and Accounting Departments. . . . [S]he was responsible for 
recommending the ... solutions and business models that would be implemented by 
[the Russian affiliate] ... . 
2 
Matter of A-D-S-LLC 
... [In Germany,] she was responsible for directing the responses to RFis [requests for 
information], RFPs [requests for proposals] and RFQs [requests for quotation] in 
connection with client requests for . . . design solutions. . . . [S]he facilitated 
communication between the customers and the different ... departments to ensure the 
successful implementation of project goals. 
The Director requested further details, calling the initial description "broad" and "ambiguous," and 
lacking "details on specific daily tasks." The Director also asked for information about the employees 
who would perform operational tasks managed by the Beneficiary. 
In response, an official of the Petitioner's Russian affiliate provided breakdowns of the Beneficiary's 
duties, and the time spent on each responsibility. The first concerned her position in Russia: 
Directing the development and preparation of [the company's] business models and 
solutions: 
• Oversight of the request for and management of information from various 
stakeholders within the organization ... and also interfaced with external parties: 
45% 
• Providing guidance, input and instructions for all solution design activities to be 
completed pursuant to [company] policies and business practices: 15% 
Project management for awarded business: 
• Making strategic decisions involved to translate client requirements and business 
concepts into working ... business and systemic processes ... : 20% 
• Monitoring project activities, using appropriate [company] tools and constantly 
reporting on the progress to all stakeholders: I 0% 
• Directing and managing project changes: 10% 
The affiliate provided the following breakdown for the Beneficiary's duties in Germany: 
Managing RFis, RFPs and RFOs: 
• Oversight of the entire proposal design phase from operational concept, cost and 
business case calculation to the primary planning of business implementation. She 
requested and managed information from various stakeholders within the 
organization ... and also interfaced with external parties: 45% 
• Managing communication between the customers and the different [company] 
departments to ensure the successful implementation of the project goals: 20% 
• Providing the requisite guidance, input and instructions for all solution design 
activities to be completed pursuant to [company] business practices: I 0% 
Directing the development and preparation of [company] business models and 
solutions: 
3 
Matter of A-D-S-LLC 
• Directing the transfer of client business requirements into detailed processes as a 
basis to serve for [company] IT [information technology] and service concepts, 
which were implemented, supported and maintained by team she supervised on a 
daily basis, as well as making strategic decisions how best to make revisions to 
business models and solutions ... : 15% 
• Managing ongoing optimization and service expansion projects on a global base: 
10% 
With respect to support staff who would perform the functions managed, the affiliate stated that, for a 
given project, the Beneficiary "had managerial responsibility for a number of professional 
employees," but the affiliate did not claim that the Beneficiary had permanent authority over a fixed 
group of subordinate employees. Instead, the affiliate asserted that the Beneficiary managed "an 
essential function for the organization, project management for the High Tech Department" in Russia, 
and, in Germany, for the Solutions Design Department. The affiliate indicated that, for a typical 
project, the Beneficiary may have "had managerial responsibility for an Account Manager, a Head of 
the Customs Department, the Accounting Director, the Director of the Legal Department and the 
Director of the Logistics & Distribution Department." 
In the denial notice, the Director quoted the descriptions provided, but found them to be "broad, vague 
and generalized," describing the Beneficiary's responsibilities but not identifying "what tasks were 
actually performed by the beneficiary" to meet those responsibilities. Therefore, the Director found 
that the Petitioner did not establish the amount of time that the Beneficiary spent on identifiably 
managerial tasks. 
The Director also found that the Petitioner provided minimal information about the employees who 
purportedly relieved the Beneficiary from performing non-qualifying tasks. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not sufficiently consider the claim that the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad as a function manager. The term "function manager" applies 
generally when a beneficiary's managerial capacity derives not from supervising or controlling a 
subordinate staff, but instead from primarily managing an "essential function" within the 
organization. See section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See section 10l(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. The term "function manager" applies 
generally when a beneficiary's managerial capacity derives not from supervising or controlling a 
subordinate staff, but instead from primarily managing an "essential function" within the 
organization. See section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
To establish that a beneficiary managed an essential function, a petitioner must clearly describe the 
duties performed in managing the essential function. In addition, the petitioner must demonstrate that: 
(1) the function is a clearly defined activity; (2) the function is "essential," i.e., core to 
the organization; (3) the beneficiary primarily managed, as opposed to performed, the 
4 
Matter of A-D-S-LLC 
function; ( 4) the beneficiary acted at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy 
or with respect to the function managed; and (5) the beneficiary exercised discretion 
over the function's day-to-day operations. 
Matter of G-Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
The letter from the Russian affiliate indicated that the Beneficiary "was responsible for an essential 
function for the organization," "exercised discretionary authority over this significant function," and 
"was employed at a senior level within the organization." 
The Director's decision focused on item (3) above. Assertions of the level of the Beneficiary's 
authority do not establish the nature of the Beneficiary's duties and tasks. Because the burden of proof 
remains with the Petitioner, there is no presumption that the Beneficiary delegated operational tasks 
to other employees. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it provided "a detailed breakdown of the duties" with an 
"extensive explanation with respect to how those duties ... are managerial in nature." The Petitioner 
contends that the job descriptions "provide sufficient detail to convey to a reasonable reader the 
managerial nature of the position": 
[T]he majority of the duties include tasks such as "oversight" which contemplates the 
supervision of persons or work; "directing," which signifies the provision of 
instructions and feedback to others by one in a position of managerial authority; and 
"managing," which connotes the exercise of direction over activities or personnel. 
The record does not support this assertion. Words such as "oversight" and "directing" and phrases 
such as "monitoring project activities," "directing and managing project changes," and "managing 
communication" connote authority, but they do not describe specific, identifiable tasks to illuminate 
how the Beneficiary exercised that authority. 
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 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). Reciting the beneficiary's vague job responsibilities or broadly-cast business 
objectives is not sufficient; the regulations require a detailed description of the beneficiary's daily job 
duties. The actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Id 
For the Beneficiary's employment in Russia and Germany, the foreign affiliate stated that the 
Beneficiary devoted 45% of her time to "[o]versight ... and also interfaced with external parties." 
The record does not say what form this oversight took. Other items on the job description refer to 
"[m]aking strategic decisions" and "[p]roviding guidance, input and instructions," so the activity that 
the company identified only as "oversight" could not have involved making decisions or issuing 
instructions unless the company counted those activities twice. 
5 
Matter of A-D-S-LLC 
Furthermore, the 45% figure combined "oversight" and the time during which the Beneficiary 
"interfaced with external parties." By combining two different elements into the same item, we cannot 
tell how much time the Beneficiary devoted to either one. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary delegated operational tasks to other employees, but the 
record provides minimal details about this delegation, except to name some examples of job titles to 
whom the Beneficiary assigned tasks. As with the Beneficiary's own job description, the lack of 
specific information regarding this delegation prevents a finding that the Petitioner has met its burden 
of proof in this regard. 
There is another reason that the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary managed an essential 
function while employed abroad. The foreign entity identified the essential functions as "business 
activities related to ... projects in the High Tech Department" and "the development of solutions for 
clients within the Solution Design Department." Solution design may be an essential function, but no 
single solution design project is an essential function by itself The Beneficiary had authority over 
individual projects, but the Petitioner did not show that the Beneficiary managed the overall functions 
themselves. 
For the reasons specified above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary was employed 
abroad as a function manager. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-D-S-LLC, ID# 2898232 (AAO Mar. 28, 2019)