dismissed EB-1C Case: Computer Software

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF N-1-, LC 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 15,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a computer software distributor, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its 
"Managing Director" under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational executives 
or managers. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(1)(C). 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(1)(C). This classification allows a U.S. employer to pem1anently transfer a qualified foreign 
employee to the United States to work in an executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center revoked the approval of the petition concluding that the 
Petitioner did not resolve previously noted inconsistencies regarding the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. 
employment 1 or establish, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States 
in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal brief: the Petitioner provides a chart detailing 
the immigrant and nonimmigrant petitions that it and one other entity had tiled on the Beneficiary's 
behalf. The Petitioner contends that it did not materially misrepresent facts pertaining to the 
Beneficiary's past or current employment. The Petitioner properly points out that the Form G-325, 
Biographic Information, and labor certification are both retrospective in that they ask for information 
about the Beneficiary's prior job experience. On the other hand, the Petitioner points out that the 
instant petition is prospective with regard to the Beneficiary's proposed employment in that it seeks 
to determine future job duties that do not need to be performed until sometime in the future if and 
when the visa petition is approved and the Beneficiary changes his status to that of a permanent 
resident. The Petitioner does not offer additional infonnation about the Beneficiary's proposed 
employment, stating only that it would sutTer significant loss and possibly have to close down if the 
Beneficiary is not permitted to assume his proposed position. 
Upon de novo review, we will affirm the revocation and dismiss the appeal based on the finding that 
the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a 
managerial or executive capacity. We will withdraw the Director's finding that the information the 
1 
Although the Director determined that "the pattern appears to be one of misrepresentation," when comparing the 
Beneficiary's employment as a computer software engineer and his proposed employment as the Petitioner·s managing 
director, he did not make a formal finding of material misrepresentation. Therefore, the issue of material 
misrepresentation will not be addressed in this decision. 
Matter qf N-1-, LC 
Petitioner offered about the Beneficiary's proposed employment is inconsistent with information that 
was previously offered in a labor certification filed by an unrelated entity in support of a different 
immigrant petition. 
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 who 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 )(1 )(C) of the Act. 
A United States employer may file Fom1 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, to classify a 
beneficiary under section 203(b )(1 )(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. This 
classification does not require a labor certification. 
The petition must include a statement from an authorized otlicial 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 tiling 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 f()r at least one 
year. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3). 
In addition, with regard to the revocation of a previously approved petition, section 205 of the Act. 
8 U.S.C. § 1155, states: ''The Attorney General may, at any time. tor what he deems to be good and 
sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204." 
Regarding the revocation on notice of an immigrant petition under section 205 of the Act. the Board 
of Immigration Appeals has stated: 
In Matter of Estime, ... this Board stated that a notice of intention to revoke a visa 
petition is properly issued for "good and sut1icient cause" where the evidence of 
record at the time the notice is issued, if unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a 
denial of the visa petition based upon the petitioner's failure to meet his burden of 
proof. The decision to revoke will be sustained where the evidence of record at the 
time the decision is rendered, including any evidence or explanation submitted by the 
petitioner in rebuttal to the notice of intention to revoke, would warrant such denial. 
Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988) (citing Matter ofEstime. 19 I&N 450 (BIA 1987)). 
2 
Matter of N-1-. LC 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director revoked approval for the petition based, in part. on the finding that the Petitioner did 
not establish that it will employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. 
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, and exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or 
function for which the employee has authority. Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110l(a)(44)(A). The statute distinguishes between personnel managers. who supervise and control 
the work of other supervisory, professional. or managerial employees, and function managers. who 
need not directly supervise other employees. but must manage an essential function within the 
organization, or a department or subdivision of the organization, and function at a senior level within 
the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed. !d. 
The statute defines executive capacity as 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 10l(a)(44)(B) ofthe Act. 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
or executive capacity. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must take into account 
the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of 
the organization. See section 10l(a)(44)(C) ofthe Act. 
A. Duties 
When examining the executive or managerial capacity of a given beneficiary. we will review the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. The Petitioner must submit a statement that clearly 
describes the duties to be performed by the Beneficiary and indicates that the Beneficiary is to be 
employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5). 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner provided a cover letter containing a description of the 
Beneficiary's proposed position. The job description is comprised of broad statements indicating 
that the Beneficiary would supervise the operation, set policies and objectives. ""determin[ e] 
profitability," and oversee and coordinate the Petitioner's sales, marketing, and finances. The 
Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary would supervise its annual budget preparation. conduct 
quarterly performance reviews of the company within the scope of its budget and recommend budget 
changes, and oversee the Petitioner's vendor relationships by attending '"periodic business reviews'' 
and "partner conferences;' working with vendors on marketing strategies and pricing, and 
identifying new vendors. The Petitioner addressed the Beneficiary's role in managing its sales. 
Matter of N-1-, LC 
stating that he would conduct period reviews of the Petitioner's ·'sales pipeline:· set sales objectives 
for foreign-based contractors, travel for client meetings ·'from time[- ]to[-]time:· and oversee the 
Petitioner's finances by managing its cash t1ow, reviewing its financial statements and customer 
credit requests, and authorizing payments to vendors. 
In a request for evidence (RFE) the Petitioner was informed that the job description it originally 
provided was insufficient because it did not contain a specific list of the Beneficiary's proposed 
daily job duties and the percentage of time he would allocate to each duty. Therefore. the Petitioner 
was instructed to supplement the record with this critical information. 
The Petitioner's response contains a duty breakdown, which is comprised of 14 job duties and a 
corresponding percentage breakdown that accounted for 115% rather than 1 00% of the Beneficiary's 
time and thus did not etiectively provide a meaningful understanding of how the Beneficiary would 
distribute his time among the listed job duties. Further. the job description indicates that half of the 
Beneficiary's assigned job duties would be performed intermittently on a bi-weekly. monthly. or 
quarterly basis. Namely, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary would intermittently do the 
following: ( 1) meet monthly with the regional managers of its "key vendors"; (2) conduct bi-weekly 
reviews of recruitment and training activities, ''purchases and logistics:' and billing and inventory 
issues; (3) meet quarterly with the company's accountant: (4) conduct monthly reviews of the 
Petitioner's financial statements; (5) conduct monthly reviews of marketing activities and strategies; 
(6) conduct monthly reviews of IT requirements abroad with a Colombia-based technology team: 
and (7) engage in yearly preparation of a business plan and profit and loss analysis and quarterly 
reviews of "each product line." As the Beneficiary would only intermittently perform these listed 
duties, they do not adequately address the RFE's request for a list of the job duties he would perform 
daily in the routine course of the Petitioner's business operation. 
The Director approved the petition. but upon further review he determined that the Petitioner had not 
established eligibility and therefore issued a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) the approval in which 
he again addressed the lack of a detailed description of the Beneficiary's daily job duties. As in the 
RFE, the Director again instructed the Petitioner to provide a definitive statement listing the 
Beneficiary's specific daily job duties and the percentage of time he would allocate to each duty. 
In response, the Petitioner provided a new breakdown of the Beneficiary's job duties with 
corresponding time allocations showing the percentage of time the Beneficiary would spend 
performing each of his assigned functions. The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary would 
allocate his time as follows: 
• 20% to managing and guiding the IT manager to ensure that all IT requirements are met; 
• 2% to monthly reviews of IT requirements with a Colombia-based IT team; 
• 8% to managing and guiding a Colombia-based e-business manager and conducting periodic 
reviews of the company's online services; 
• 10% to meeting "at least monthly'' with the management of key vendors; 
• 3% to meeting with the management team for quarterly reviews of vendor perfonnances; 
4 
Matter of N-1-, LC 
• I 0% to attending vendor conferences; 
• 2% to meeting monthly with the finance and operations manager and the sales manager to 
evaluate sales incentive programs; 
• 5% to making quarterly objectives for the Colombia-based regional business manager and review 
his performance "at least twice a month": 
• 2% to engaging in negotiations with vendors: 
• 10% to leading a weekly sales review with the '·sales/territory manager and if necessary with 
product managers" to review business opportunities; 
• 5% to "[d]efin[ing] specific actions on the main business opportunities'' and communicating with 
resellers and customers to "ensure proper closing of the deals''; 
• 3% to overseeing a Colombia-based marketing team; 
• 5% to conducting reviews "at least twice a month'' with the finance and operations manager to 
address payment terms and "special discounts," purchasing details. billing issues, and inventory 
status; 
• 5% to conducting weekly reviews with the finance and operations manager to address cash flow 
and collections issues, approve specific credit requests, establish protocol for past due bills, and 
authorize payments to vendors and suppliers: 
• I% to quarterly meetings with an accountant to review yearly finances and tax return; 
• 3% to monthly review of financial statements and quatierly presentation of finances before the 
board of directors; 
• 3% to managing business planning and review through annual engagement with team managers 
to prepare a business plan and conduct a profit-loss analysis, review of each product line's 
business plan and budget, and quarterly sales review of each product line: 
• 2% to defining hiring projections based on introduction of new product lines and conducting bi­
annual evaluations of manager performances and ensure that they conduct similar evaluations of 
members of their respective teams; and 
• 1% to participating in business review meetings and recommending new business initiatives to 
the board of directors. 
As with the previously submitted job duty breakdown, this job description also allocates significant 
portions of the Beneficiary's time- approximately 40%- to job duties that the Beneficiary would 
perform intermittently on a bi-weekly, monthly, quarterly, and even yearly basis and thus are not 
accurate representations of duties that the Beneficiary would perform daily in the routine course of 
the Petitioner's business operation. Further. the duty breakdown contains several references to 
foreign-based staff and indicates that approximately 38% of the Beneficiary's time would be spent 
collaborating and working with an IT manager and IT team, an e-business manager, a business 
development manager, and a regional marketing team who are based in Colombia. These positions 
correspond with information provided in the Petitioner's 2017 organizational chati and therefore it 
does not appear that these listed positions were part of the Petitioner's organization at the time of 
filing or that the Beneficiary's updated job description is an accurate reflection of his proposed job 
duties during that time period. While we acknowledge that the Petitioner's organizational structure 
may have undergone some changes since the petition was first tiled and that the change in job duties 
may reflect those changes, the Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the 
Matter of N-1-, LC 
immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the tiling and continuing through 
adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). Given the lack of evidence showing that the Petitioner 
employed an IT manager, an IT team, an e-business manager, a business development manager, or a 
regional marketing team at the time of filing, any job duty included in the updated job description 
that involves the Beneficiary's collaboration with or oversight of these listed positions would not be 
deemed relevant in this instance as these duties are not part of an accurate depiction of the 
Beneficiary's proposed job duties at the time of tiling. Only duties that the Beneficiary could have 
performed based on the facts and circumstances that existed at the time of tiling can be considered in 
determining eligibility. 
In the revocation decision, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. He found that the job 
description was overly broad and did not convey an adequate understanding of the Beneficiary's 
proposed job duties. Based on our review of the record, we agree with the Director's determination. 
On appeal, the Petitioner addresses the perceived inconsistences between the instant petition and 
another visa petition filed by an unrelated entity as discussed in the Director's decision; however, it 
does not address the findings regarding the insutliciency of the submitted job descriptions. As 
properly noted in the Director's decision, specifics are critical to determining 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), affd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
In the present matter, the Petitioner has not provided a job description that adequately lists the 
Beneficiary's proposed daily job duties in the course of the company's routine business operation. 
As noted above, the Beneficiary's most recent job description appears to apply to the Petitioner's 
current staffing arrangement that did not exist when this petition was tiled. While we acknowledge 
the Petitioner's prior submission of an earlier job description, as noted above, the time allocations 
totaled to more than I 00% and thus did not accurately establish how much time the Beneficiary 
would allocate to each of his assigned job duties. We further observed that 7 of the 14 listed job 
duties would be performed intermittently on a bi-weekly, monthly, or quarterly basis and thus did 
not provide an adequate understanding of the daily tasks the Beneficiary would perform in the 
course of the Petitioner's daily business operation. Despite being asked multiple times- first in an 
RFE and later in the NOIR - for the submission of a detailed job description delineating the 
Beneficiary's daily job duties, the Petitioner has not provided this relevant information and therefore 
we cannot determine the actual tasks that were part of the Beneficiary's proposed assignment at the 
time of filing, nor can we conclude that his time would have been primarily allocated to tasks of a 
managerial or executive nature. 
B. Staffing 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, USCIS reviews the totality of the record when 
examining the claimed managerial or executive capacity of a beneficiary, including the company's 
Matter of N-1-, LC 
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. 
A beneficiary's control over the business does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification 
as a multinational manager or executive in a managerial or executive capacity within the meaning of 
section 101(a)(44) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of 
a position be "primarily" of a managerial or executive nature. Sections 10l(A)(44)(A) and (B) of 
the Act. While the Beneficiary may exercise discretion over the Petitioner's day-to-day operations 
and possesses the requisite level of authority with respect to discretionary decision-making, the 
Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's actual duties, as of the date of tiling, would be 
primarily managerial or executive in nature. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows tor both '"personnel managers" and 
"function managers." See section 10l(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Personnel managers must 
primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial 
employees. The statute plainly states that a "first line supervisor is not considered to be acting in a 
managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees 
supervised are professional.'' Section 10l(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(4)(i). 
The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's elevated position 
within a complex organizational hierarchy, including major components or functions of the 
organization, and that person's authority to direct the organization. Section 101 (a)( 44 )(B) of the 
Act. Under the statute, a beneficiary must have the ability to "direct the management" and "establish 
the goals and policies'' of that organization. Inherent to the definition, the organization must have a 
subordinate level of managerial employees for a beneficiary to direct and they must primarily focus 
on the broad goals and policies of the organization rather than the day-to-day operations of the 
enterprise. An individual will not be deemed an executive under the statute simply because they 
have an executive title or because they '"direct" the enterprise as the owner or sole managerial 
employee. A beneficiary must also exercise ·'wide latitude in discretionary decision making'' and 
receive only "general supervision or direction from higher level executives. the board of directors, or 
stockholders of the organization." !d. 
In the present matter, the Petitioner claimed seven employees at the time of tiling, but did not 
provide a separate organizational chart or list its employees by name and position title. In its 
response to an RFE, the Petitioner provided an organizational chart that depicted the Beneficiary at 
the top of the organizational hierarchy overseeing a corporate secretary and four managers - an 
accounting and administrative manager, a sales manager, a marketing and media manager, and an 
operations manager. The accounting and administrative manager is shown as overseeing an 
administrative assistant; the sales manager is depicted as overseeing a sales analyst; and the 
operations manager is depicted as overseeing tour foreign-based contractors, including three sales 
contractors in Colombia, Paraguay, and the Dominican Republic. respectively, and a technology 
.., 
.
Matter of N-1-, LC 
contractor in Mexico. The marketing and media manager is not depicted as having any subordinate 
employees and the corresponding employee job description does not list any supervisory tasks as 
part of the marketing manager's position. The employee job description indicates that everyone 
except the administrative assistant is a full-time employee. The RFE response also included a 2010 
Form W-3, Transmittal of Wage and Tax Statements, and seven IRS Form W-2s that the Petitioner 
issued to its employees in 2010. The Petitioner did not provide a Form 
W-2 for 
whom the organizational chart listed as the sales analyst subordinate to the sales manager; nor did it 
offer evidence to show that it paid compensation to the four foreign-based contractors who were 
listed as subordinates of the operations manager. Without subordinates we cannot conclude that the 
operations manager was truly working as a managerial or supervisory employee as his position title 
indicates. 
In the NOIR the Director instructed the Petitioner to provide its state quarterly reports from 2009 
through 2016 as well as evidence of any contractors it used in the course of running its business. 
Although the response included quarterly tax returns for the requested time period, the Petitioner did 
not comply with the express instructions in the NOIR, which asked for state quarterly reports 
containing employee names and wages as well as evidence of any contract workers it used. Without 
the requested evidence, we cannot determine precisely whom the Petitioner employed during the 
2010 third quarter when the instant petition was filed; nor can we verify that the Petitioner employed 
four foreign-based contracted workers as claimed. As such, the record does not support the claim 
that the Beneficiary allocated his time primarily to overseeing a managerial or supervisory support 
stafi. 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). 
The lack of a state quarterly report for 2010 third quarter also precludes us from being able to 
reconcile information in the Petitioner's 2010 organizational chart, which identified as 
the Petitioner's full-time sales analyst, and the fact that the record lacks evidence to show that the 
Petitioner paid wages to a full-time sales analyst at the time the petition was filed. The Petitioner 
must resolve this discrepancy in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where 
the truth lies. Matter olHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). As indicated above, the lack of 
evidence to support the information claimed in the organizational chart raises the question of 
whether the sales manager and the operations manager were truly a managerial or supervisory 
positions as their respective position titles indicate. As only one of the Beneficiary's direct 
subordinates- the accounting and administration manager- actually had a subordinate of his own, it 
cannot be concluded that the Beneficiary was prepared to allocate his time primarily to overseeing 
managerial or supervisory employees when the instant petition was filed. 
The record also does not include sufficient evidence to show that three out of four of the 
Beneficiary's claimed subordinates were professional employees. In evaluating 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. Cl 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 
Matter of N-1-, LC 
IOI(a)(32) ofthe Act, states that "[t]he term profession shall include but not be limited to architects, 
engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools. colleges, 
academies, or seminaries." 
Therefore, we must focus on the level of education required by the position, rather than the degree 
held by subordinate employee. The possession of a bachelor's degree by a subordinate employee 
does not automatically lead to the conclusion that an employee is employed in a professional 
capacity. The Petitioner has not established that a bachelor's degree is actually necessary to perform 
the duties assigned to the Petitioner's sales manager. its marketing and media manager. or its 
operations manager. 
Likewise, the lack of managerial or supervisory employees indicates that the Petitioner Jacked the 
organizational complexity that would have allowed the Beneficiary to ''direct the management" and 
"establish the goals and policies" of the organization as required of someone employed in an 
executive capacity. See section IOI(a)(44)(B) ofthe Act. 
Further, as noted earlier in this decision, the Petitioner's 20 I 7 organizational chart which shows 
changes in the Petitioner's staffing, does not address the critical issue of the Petitioner's eligibility as 
of the date this petition was tiled. Likewise, a number of employee resumes provided with the 
NOIR response show hiring dates subsequent to the tiling of the instant petition and are similarly 
irrelevant for the purpose of determining the Petitioner's eligibility at the time of filing, as they 
depict staffing changes that had not yet occurred when the petition was tiled. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). 
In the revocation decision, the Director found that the evidence provided showed that the Petitioner 
had few employees and that most were paid wages that were commensurate with those of part-time 
employees. Given that only one employee's salary ~ that of the administrative assistant ~ is 
commensurate with a part-time worker, a fact that the Petitioner readily admitted in the employee 
job description list, we disagree with the Director's assessment. However, we cannot disregard that 
the Petitioner did not provide requested evidence, including its state quarterly reports and evidence 
of wages paid to foreign contract workers showing precisely whom the Petitioner employed at the 
time of filing. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter o(Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 201 0). 
The lack of sufficient supporting evidence leads us to question whether the Petitioner was adequately 
staffed at the time of filing such that it had the ability to relieve the Beneficiary from having to carry 
out its non-qualifying operational functions. While the Beneficiary is not required to allocate all of 
his time to performing managerial or executive job duties, the nonmanagerial or nonexecutive tasks 
he would perform should only be incidental to an otherwise managerial or executive position. An 
employee who "primarily'' performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services 
is not considered to be "primarily" employed in a managerial or executive capacity. See. e.g, 
sections 10l(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that one ··primarily" perform the enumerated 
9 
Matter of N-1-, LC 
managerial or executive duties); Matter ofChurch Scientology Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm'r 
1988). 
In the present matter, not only does the record contain deficient job descriptions that lack necessary 
information about the Beneficiary's proposed daily tasks at the time of tiling, but it also lacks 
sufficient evidence that would lead to the conclusion that the Petitioner's organizational hierarchy 
was sufficient to relieve him from having to primarily carry out the Petitioner's operational functions 
and to support him in a primarily managerial or executive position. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The approval of the petition will remain revoked and the appeal dismissed based on the lack of 
sufficient evidence establishing that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a 
managerial or executive capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofN-1-. LC, ID# 667967 (AAO Nov. 15, 2017) 
10