dismissed EB-1C Case: Clothing Wholesale

(b)(6)
DATE:/ OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
NOV 0 7 2013 
INRE: Petitioner : 
Beneficiary : 
u.s. Department of licnneliilid Security 
U.S. C i ~izenship ami Immigration Service! 
Offi(e of Administrative Appeals 
20 Massachusetts Av.e., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529- 2090 
U.S~ Citizenship 
and Immi. · tation .. ... ... . g ·• 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION~ Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Inurtigtation and Nationality Act, 8.U.S, C § 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON :aEifALF OF PETITIONER: I 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) iii your case. 
This is a non~precedent decision. The AAO does not announce neW constructions of law nor establish 
agency poljcy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or 
policy to yout case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file l:J. motion to reconsider 
or a motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Fotin 
I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, ~ling location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. · 
Thank you, 
. fta__ . 
;L~t;:~g . . . 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION , 
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is 
now before the Adn}i~istrl!-tive Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed: 
The petitioner is a New York corporation engaged in the import and wholesale distribl1tion of clothing. T.he 
petitioner . states. that it is a subsidiary of . located in 
China. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as its general manager. Accordingly, the petitioner 
I I .. . -
endeavors to classify tbe beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section :203(b)(l)(C) of 
tne Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C § 11S3(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or 
manager. 
The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner had failed to establish that the beneficiary will be 
employed in ~n execl1tive or managerial capacity in the United States. The director also concluded that the 
petitioner had failed to establish that beneficiary had been employed abroad in a managerial or executive 
capacity for 
at least one of the three years preceding the beneficiary's entry into the United St;ites as ~.rtlAA 
nonimmigrant intracompany transferee. 
On appeal, counsel contends that the petitioner will employ the beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or 
executive capacity and asserts that the director mischaracterized the nature of his job · duties. The petitioner 
submits additional information regarding the beneficiary's proposed duties and the company's personnel 
structure in. support of the appeal. 
I. The Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act s.tates in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority W0tl_(¢ts. -~, Visas shall first be made available .... to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
* * * 
(C) Certain Multinational Executives and Managers.- - An alien is described 
in this subparagraph if the alien, in the 3 years preceding the time of tl:le 
alien's application for classification ~nd admission into the United States 
under this subparagraph, has been employed for at least 1 year by a firm or 
corporation or other legal entity or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof and who 
seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to render services to the 
same employer or to a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is 
managerial or executive. 
(b)(6)
' ' 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page3 
The language of the statute is specific in limiting this provision to only those executives and managers who 
have previously worked for<~, fi,nn, corporation or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary of that entity, 
and wllQ are coming to the United States to work for the same entity, or its affiliate or subsidiary. 
A United States employer m'ay file a petition on Fortn 1-140 for cl~ssification of an ~lien under section 
203(b)(l)(C}ofthe Act as a multination<~,l ex~utive or manager. No labor certification is required for this 
classification. The prospective employer in the United States must furnish a job offer in the form of a 
sta.temeot wl1i9h indicate$ that the .alien is to be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive 
c;apacity. Such a statement must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the alien. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act; 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A), provides: 
The ter.m "managerial capacity'' means an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily--
(i) manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, functio~ •. or 
component Of tl!e orgai1ization; 
(ii) supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
manageriai employees, or manages an essential function Within the 
organiiatiort, or a department or subdivision of the organization; 
(iii) if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the 
authority to hire and fire or recommend those 'as well as other personnel 
actions (sU,ch as promotion and leave authorization), of if no other employee 
is directly supervised, fuf1ctions at a senior level withi.n tbe org~nization<,tl 
hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and 
(iv) exercises discretion over the day~to-day opetatjons of the activity or 
' . I . . 
ftlitc;tion for which the employee has authority. A first-line supervisor is not 
consider~d to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the 
supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees ·supervised are 
professional. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(B), provides: 
1
The term "executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily--
(b)(6)
/ 
' 
Page4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(i) directs the management of the organization or a major component or 
function of the organization; 
(ii) establish~s · the goals and policies of the organization, component, or 
function; 
(iii) exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision~making; and 
(iv) receives only gen~ral supervision or direction from higher level execloltives, 
the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
H. The Issues on Appeal 
A. U.S. einployrtu~nt in a manageri31 or executive capacity 
The first issue to be addressed is whether the petitioner has established that it will employ the beneficiary in a 
qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
in denying the petition, the director stated that the petitioner had submitted a vague duty description for tbe 
beneficiary's proposed position that fa,iled to establish what he would be doing on a d;,ty-to-day basis. The 
·director al_so noted that the petitioner had failed to submit IRS Forms 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax 
Return, for 2012, as requested by the director, as evidence of its staffing levels. In sum, the director 
concluded that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary would allocate a majority of his 
time to executive or managerial duties. 
On appeal, counsel submits an additio~al support letter from the petitioner and asserts that the letter provides 
sufficient detail regarding the beneficiary's duties in the United States. Counsel contends that the beneficiary 
is not involved in the provision of goods or services, but that he oversees departments with managers devoted 
to the day-to-day e>f>erational ciuties of the business. Counsel states that the supporting evidence demonstrates 
that the beneficiary will devote a majority of his time. to operational and policy management and supervision 
of subordinate professionals with advanced degrees. 
Upoo review of the petition and the. evidence, and for the reasons discussed herein, the petitioner has not 
established that it will employ the beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
In order to determine whether the beneficiary would be employed in a qualifying executive or managerial 
capacity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will look first to the petitioner's description of 
the job duties. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(j)(5). lil a support letter submitted with the petition, the petitioner 
explained the beneficiary's duties as general manager as follows: 
(b)(6)
. Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
From 2009 to the present. [the beneficiary] has been working with [the petitioner] as a 
General Manager to manage this new subsidiary office. During his service, [the 
beneficiary] has fulfilled his duties as a General Manager to our satisfaction, which is in 
the 
key executive capacity within the New York subsidi::try compa,ny. 
[The beneficiary's] major job responsibilities fulfilled in the past year in New York 
include setting up and managing the New York offiCe. He had full responsibility fot the 
following: 
1. Opened and managed the operations of the New York subsidiary; 
2. Supervised and controlled the work of other supervisory and managerial staff; 
3. Authorized to hire and fire personnel and other persotuiel actions such as promotion 
and leaVe; 
4. DeVeloped and directed operational guidelines and procedures; 
5. Formulated new business goals, to bring together departments of the company to 
work on each business plan; 
6. Supervised their work, setting standards for the work and general guidelines for each 
assignment which rnl!st be followed and executed by depart:rnents of the company; 
7. Coordinated the various teams to assure that each business plan is implemented 
adequately and on schedule; 
8. Supervised the implementation and management of the policy and policy of 
developing new business market in the United States, Canada, Europe and South 
America; 
9. Developed organization and distribution systems; 
10. Set marketing goals for improvement products and marketing of American products~ 
into China; 
11. Used past experience to est).blish managerial and sale systems similar to the present 
company in China. 
Additionally, the petition~r submitted an organizational chart indicating that the beneficiary reports to a 
"president/vice president" and oversees six departments, including: (l) an a<:fministration department staffed 
by a secretary; (2) an accou,11ting department staffed by a manager and subordinate bookkeeper; (3) a 
shipping department staffed by one superVisor and one Clerk; ( 4) a marketing and sales department staffed by 
one manager, three loc~l sales representatives and two out~of-st:ate $ales representatives; (5) a retail Store 
department staffed by one supervisor and two salesmen; and (6) a customer service department staffed by 
one custom~r service representative and one technical support specialist. The petitioner also submitted duty 
descriptions for each position, but did not specifically identify any employees by name. The organizational 
chart identifies a total of 18 positions. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
PCJ.g~6 
The director issued a request for evidence (RFE) in which he advised the petitioner that the position 
descriptions submitted at the time of filing were vague and therefore insuffic.ient to est;J.blish the beneficia.,ry's . . 
eligibility as a manager ot exec·utive. The director instructed the petitioner to submit a definitive statement 
describing the beneficieJ.ry's duties, includil_lg the position title, all specific daily duties, and the percentage of . 
tirne spent on each duty. Further, the director requested that the petitioner submit a complete organizational 
chart showing the number of subordinate managers/supervisors or other empioyees reporting to the 
beneficiary, in~lud_ing their job titles, duty descriptions and education levels. The director also requesteq th,at 
the petitioner submit IRS Fotms W-2, Wage and Tax St<~.tement, IRS Forms 94L Employer's Quarterly 
Federal Tax R,ettim, for each quarter of 2012, and if applicable IRS Forms 1099, to corroborate the 
. employment of the ,individuals identified in the organizational chart. 
In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner provided the . following add_itional explanation of toe 
beneficiary's proposed du_ties i_n the United States: 
[The beneficiary's] major job responsibilities fulfilled In the past year in New York 
included both setting up and managing the New York office. Now that the subsidiary is 
set-up, he will focus on management duties. He Will have full responsipility for the 
following: 
1. Manage the operation of the New York subsidiary- 100%, made up of the following 
duties: 
2. Supervise <~.nd control the work of other supervisory a:nd rna:nageri_a] st<tff (~0%); · 
3. Oversee 'hiring and firing of personnel and other personnel actions such as womotion 
and leave (10%); 
4. Develop and direct operation guidelines and procedures (10%); 
5. Fonnulate new business goals, to bring togetMr departments of the compa.ny to work 
on _each business plan (10%); 
6. Supervise work of departments, setting standards for the work and general guidelines 
for each assignment which must be followed and executed (5%); 
7. Coordinate the various teams to ensure that eacp business plan is impl~rnented 
adequately and on schedule (5%); 
8. Continue to supervise the implementation of management Of the policy and policy of 
developing new business market in the United States (4.5%); 
9. Develop organization and distribution systems (2.5%); 
10. Continue to set marketing goals for improvement products and marketing of 
American products into China (5% ). 
The petitioner also identified the names of the employees within the petitioner's organizational chart, but 
failed to submit any of the requested tax documentation to corroborate that the employees are actually on its 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page7 
p~yroll or paid as contractors. The petitioner also failed to indicate whether the individuals named are 
employees or contractors or whether they work full-time or part-time. 
On appeal, the petitioner provides additional details regarding the beneficiary's duties within each of the ten 
are~s of responsibility as set forth above. The petitioner further explains the second responsibility outlined, 
stating that the beneficiary will "work directly with each department ~ead in setting standards fot their work, 
and setting goals for their teams." With respect to the third category above, the petitioner a,sserts that the 
hiring and firing of petsoi1flel would be dol)e by the various department heads, but with ultimate oversight 
ftoin the beneficiary. The petitioner additionally emphasizes that the beneficiary would be involved with 
general reporting and would be given ''general overviews so that he knows who the VIP supplier and clients 
are," so the beneficiary can "cultivate and maintain those VIP relationships that are most important to the 
company.;' 
Tbe petitioner also submits an updated organizational chart in which the names of four of the six 
"department heads" are different than those submitted in response to the director's RFE. The petitioner 
further submits copies of 2013 IRS Forms 1099 for five of the six department heads depicted in the updated 
organizational chart. The petitioner also provides copies of educatiol)al creqentiaJs for these sarpe five 
employees. However, none of these individuals were identified as employees of the company at the time the 
petitioner responded to the RFE. The petitioner's vice president states that "although we have 15+ positions 
with our company, about half are part-time, and many are independent contractors who ":ork full time.'' 
The definitions of execUtive and managerial capacity have two parts. First, the petitioner must shQw that th~ 
beneficiary performs the high-level responsibilities that are specified in the definitions. Second, the 
petitioner must prove that the beneficiarY primarily performs these specified responsibilities and does not 
spend a majority of his or her time on day-to-day functions. Champion World, inc. v. INS, 940 E2d 1533 
(Table), 1991 WL 144470 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991). 
AlthoughJhe beneficiary has provided additional explanations with respect to each of the beneficiary's areas 
of responsibility on appeal, these further assertions provide little meaningful insight into the beneficiary's 
actual daily duties. 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 duties 
offered by the petitioner, such as supervising department heads and setting their goals, signing off on 
promotions and leave authorizations, signing off on the hiring and firing decisions of his department 
managers, developing suidelines for the various departments, cultivating and maintaining· "VIP 
relationships," and formulating new business goals are overly vague and provide littl~ probative value as to 
the beneficiary's day-to-day activities. The duties, and the record generally, include no specific examples or 
documentation to support the beneficiary's vaguely described duties. Further, the petitioner does not 
specifically describe goals that were set for his department heads, guidelines that were formulated for. his 
managerial subordinates, specific hiring and firing decisions that were made, ''VIP clients cultivated and 
maintained," or new business goals implemented. It is reasonable to expect that the petitioner would provide 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page8 
some specifics regarding the beneficiary's past a,ctions and accomplishments in his capacity as general 
manager, since he is asserted as having worked in this capacity since 2009. Specifics are clearly an 
important indication of whe.ther a beneficiary's duties are primarily execu_tive or managerial in nature. 
Overail, the petitioner has failed to provide any detail or explanation of the beneficiary's activities in the 
co.urse of h_is d(lily routine. The actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. 
Fe(ijn Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (id. Cir. i990) .. 
Beyond the required descrip!iOn of the job duties, USCIS reviews the totality of the record when examining 
the claimed rtianageri<!-1 or executive capacity of a beneficiary, including the company's organizational 
structure, the duties of the beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other employees to relieve 
t_he beneficiary from performing operational dutie~. the nature of the business, and any other ·factors that Wi_ll 
contribute to a complete understanding of a ben~ficiary' s actual duties and role in a business. · 
In the present tn;;ttter, (he1 petitioner was requested by the director to submit tax documentation to corroborate 
the cornp4ny's claims regarding its staffing levels and organ_iz(ltional structure. The petitioner failed to 
provide this documentation in response to the director. On appeal, the petitioner submits 2013 IRS Forms 
1099 for five individuals who were not claimed as employees prior to the denial of the petition. Furtner, the 1 
petitioner failed to submit any evidence of payments made to employees or contractors as of the date the 
petition was filed in September 2012, or at any point in 2012. The regulation s(ates that the petitioner shall 
submit l).ddition(ll evidence as the director, in his or her discretion, may deem necessary. The purpose of the 
request for evidence is to elicit further infotmation that clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit sought has 
been established, as of the ~ime the petition is filed. See 8 C.P.R. §§ 103.2(b)(8) and (12). The failure to 
submit requested evidence tha:_t precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 
8 C.P.R.§ 103.Z(b)(14). 
Where, as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an 
opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on 
appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Oba_igbeiza, 19 I&~ Dec. 
533 (BIA 1988). If the petitioner had Wl!.nted the submitted evidence to be considered, it should have 
submitted the documents in response to the director's request for evidence./d. Under the circumstances, the 
AAO need not aild does not consider the IRS Forms 1099 submitted on appeal. Regardless, the Forms· 1099 
submitte<;i on appeal are for 2013 and therefore are not relevant to a determination of the petitioner's . 
eligibility as of ~he date of filing. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition 
cannot be approved at a futu.re date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of 
facts. Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Comm'r 1971). 
The petitioner's failure to submit any documentary evidence of its staffing levels as of the date of filing 
,Jeaves the petitioner's claim that the beneficiary supervises six subordinate department man(lgers and ten 
ac:ic:iitiOnl!-1 ~ubordinates unsupported. Further, the petitioner has not provided any e_xplanation for the 
significant turnover of its subordinate department managers. The record contains no information regarding 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page9 
who w(ls actuaUy working for the company at the time of filing and the petitioner's original organizational 
chart and employee list failed to identify any employees by name. The petitioner provided the names of 14 
subordinate employees at the time it responded to the RFE in May 2013. As of August 2013, the petitioner 
has identified different individuals holding the positions of secretary, accounting manager, bookkeeper, 
marketing ail.d sales manager, retail store supervisor and customer services manager. The only educational 
credentil!ol a.nd tax documentation submitted on appeal relates to these newly claimed employees; however, 
there is no evidence that 
any of them worked for the company as of the date of filing. 
Additionally, the petitioner has not submitted supporting documentation to establish that it has any 
permanent employees, including IRS Forms W-2 or IRS Forms 941 for :2012 requested by the director. Also, 
no supporting documenta.Jion was submitted to demonstrate that the petitioner employs ten additional 
employees subordinate to the departmental managers as specified in ,the most recent organizational chart 
submitted on appeal. Again, the failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry 
.shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). Also, going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of Soffici, 2:2 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Pee. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)). · 
In fact, the petitioner's bank accounts indicate that it has riot made any payroll payments to any employees 
and a healthcare invoice submitted on the tecotd from June 2012 indicates that the benefieiaty is the only 
employee coveted under tne health pll!,n, further supporting a conclusion thlit the petitioner does not employ 
the si~teen employees set forth in its most recent organizational chart. Additionally, the most recent IRS 
I . 
. Form 1120 U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return submitted, for the tax year ended on November 30, 2011, 
states that the petitioner paid $100,014 in "salaries, wages & contractor fees;' during the previous year, a 
level of wages not in concert with the employment of a vice president, six department heads, ten other 
subordinate .employees, and the beneficiary at a salary of $72,000 per year. The petitioner fails to rectify 
this apparent discrep;Incy with supporting tax documentation froro :2011 or 2012. Indeed, the petitioner's 
business plan from 2012 is entirely prospective as to the establishment of the petitioner's business, despite its 
previous assertions that the beneficiary has been acting in a managerial or executive capacity with the 
petitioner since entering the United States on an 1.-1 nonimmigrant visa in 2009. It is incumbent upon the 
petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to 
explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective 
evid,ence pointing to where the truth lies. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, 
lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the 
visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. 
On appeal, the petitioner provided educational credentials for five of the beneficiary's six claimed 
managerial subordinates. The submitted documentation reflects that these individuals hold the following 
degrees: (1) the company's secretary has a master of science degree in finance, (2) the accounting manager 
has a master of scie·nce degree in business administration, (3) the bookkeeper has a master of sciences degree 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
in mathematics and computer science, (4) the sales and marketing manager has a· bachelor of sciences degree 
in accounting, and (5) the retail store manager has a bachelor's degree in fine arts. Based on this submitted 
evidence, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary supervises and controls professional and managerial 
subordinates. 
As previously stated herein, none of thes.e employees identified on appeal were claimed to be employed by 
the petitioner prior to the denial of the petition. In fact, the petitioner indicated that different employees held 
each of these positions at the time it responded to the RFE, just three rn,onths prior to the filing of the appeal. 
Even if this office were to accept that the petitioner currentlY employs the asserted managerial and 
professioiJ.a.l subordinates claimed on appeal, the petitioner cannot rely on these employees to establish that 
the beneficiary was overseeing managerial and professional subordinates at the time of filing. As the 
petitioner failed to document Its . actual organizational structure or staffing at the time of filing, it cannot 
support a claim that the beneficiary supervised subordinate managers, supervisors or professionals. Again, a . \ . 
visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of fut\lre eligibility or after the petitioner or, 
beneficiM)' becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 
(Reg. Comm'r 1978); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971). A petitioner may not make 
material changes to a petitio~ in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See 
Matter of lzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
ln conclusion, the petitioner qas failed to submit the required detailed description of the beneficiary's position 
and it provided insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that it employs sufficient employees to support 
the beneficiary in ail executive or managerial capacity. For this reason, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
B. Managerial or executive capacity with the foreign employer 
The next issue to be addressed is whether the petitioner has established that the beneficiary was employed 
abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity for at least one year in the three years preceding his 
admission to the United States as a nonimmigrant in 2009. 
Again, in order to determine whether the beneficiary would be employed in a qualifying executive or 
managerial capacity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will look first to the petitioner's 
de·scriptjon of the job duties. See 8 CF.R. § 204.5(j)(5). In concluding that the petitioner had failed to 
demonstrate that the beneficiary was employed by its foreign parent company in a qualifying executive or 
managerial capacity, the director noted the .vague nat~re of the position description submitted in response to 
the director's RFE. In the RFE, the director had requested that the petitioner submit a definitive statement 
from the foreign employer describing the beneficiary's title, all of his job duties, and the percentage of time 
he spent on each specific task.. In response to the RFE, the petitioner provided the following explanation of 
the beneficiary's duties in his former capacity as the foreign entity's general manager: 
, [The beneficiary's] daily dutieswere: 
(b)(6)
Page 11 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
• Overseeing the daily operations of the office (40%) 
o Supervision ami/assignment of other managers and department heads (20%) 
• Meeting with department heads to receive updates and stay appraised of 
company matters (20%) 
• Oversaw hiring and/or promotion and firing of other managerial positions and/or 
department heads, and generally oversaw other hires/fires (i.e. not interviewing 
directly, but rec~iving feedback from other managers (10%) 
• Made final decisions on matter pertinent to company functions ( 10%) 
On appeal, tbe petitioner does not contest the director's finding that 
the petitioner had not est_ablishe<i that the 
beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to 
be abandoned. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, 
No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4111885 at *1, *9 (KD.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court found the 
plaintiff's Claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). The AAO will not 
disturb tbe decision of the clirector as it concurs that tlle duties provided for the beneficiary's position witl;l the 
foreign entity are overly vague and provide little probative value as to the beneficiary's what the beneficiary 
actually did on a day-to-day basis as the company's general manager. Again, 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. Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a 
beneficiary's duties a:re primarily executive or managerial in nature. Overall, the petitioner has failed to 
provide any detail or explanation of the beneficiary's activities in the course of his daily routine. The actual 
duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 
at 1108. 
As such, the petitioner has not established that the foreign entity employed the beneficiary in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity. For this additional reason, the appeal must be dismissed. 
III. Conclusion 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. 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; Matter of Otiende, 26 
I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.