dismissed EB-1C Case: Crop Nutrients

MATTER OF T-M- CO. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 26,2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a producer and marketer of concentrated phosphate and potash crop nutrients, seeks 
to permanently employ the Beneficiary as a credit manager under the multinational executive or 
manager immigrant classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b)(l)(C), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C). This classification allows a U.S. employer to permanently transfer a 
qualified foreign employee to the United States to work in an executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
evidence of record did not establish: (1) that the Beneficiary will be employed in the United States in 
a qualifying managerial or executive capacity; and (2) that the Beneficiary has been employed 
abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it submitted sufficient 
evidence to establish that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad and will be employed in the 
United States in a qualifying managerial capacity and that Director erred in denying the petition. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203 (b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers.- 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 the alien's application for 
classification and 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 the alien seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to 
Matter ofT-M- Co. 
render services to the same employer or to a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity 
that is managerial or executive. 
II. EMPLOYMENT IN A QUALIFYING MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director denied the petition based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish: (1) the 
Beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity; 
and (2) the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" 
as an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(i) manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or 
component of the organization; 
(ii) 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; 
(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 (such as promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee 
is directly supervised, functions at a senior level within the organizational 
hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and 
(iv) exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or 
function for which the employee has authority. 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. 
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 101(a)(44)(C) ofthe Act. 
A. Employment in a Qualifying Managerial or Executive Capacity in the United States 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5) requires the Petitioner to submit a statement which indicates 
that the Beneficiary is to be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The statement must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the Beneficiary. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter ofT-M- Co. 
1. Facts 
The Petitioner filed Form I-140 on September 9, 2014, and claimed that it employed 8,000 
employees worldwide. The Petitioner did not specify the number of U.S. employees. In a letter 
dated September 2, 2014, the Petitioner's director of recruiting, stated that the 
Beneficiary "will continue to direct and oversee the day-to-day credit activities of [the Petitioner's] 
Minnesota credit function ," which "is critical to the successful management of customer 
revenues and Company cash flow operations." provided a description of the 
Beneficiary's duties as credit manager with the percentage of time he allocates to six areas of 
responsibility. Briefly, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary allocates 50% percent of his time to 
credit financial analysis management, 30% to personnel leadership, 10% to relationship development 
management, 5% to order release, collection and metrics oversight, and 5% to geographic 
management. 
stated that "[the Beneficiary's] oversight of the daily credit activities for our 
Minnesota credit function represents a key component of our larger organizational 
infrastructure and comprises an essential function within our Company ," and noted that the 
Beneficiary "functions at a senior level" with respect to this function. 
stated that the Beneficiary would "directly oversee the activities of four professional­
level employees," specifically two credit analysts and two senior credit analysts. She also stated that the 
Beneficiary, "in his supervisory capacity, will continue to possess the authority to recommend hiring, 
firing, and other personnel actions for his subordinates ... and will report directly to 
Credit Manager." An accompanying organizational chart shows the arrangement described above, 
showing title as "Manager Credit" rather than "Credit Manager" and indicating that 
reports to the Petitioner's vice president and treasurer. The organizational chart does not depict the 
structure of the entire petitioning organization, but rather the seven-person 
in which the Beneficiary works. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) on January 30, 2015, stating that the Petitioner had 
"provided only a generalized statement of the beneficiary's duties in the U.S." The Director asked 
the Petitioner to submit "[a] list of the employees .. . in the beneficiary's immediate division , 
department, or team ," with "a summary of their job duties [and] educational level." 
In response, the Petitioner submitted a letter dated April 20, 2015, from the 
Petitioner's senior director of human resources. asserted that the Beneficiary's intended 
position as a credit manager meets all the requirements of a managerial position. 
repeated and expanded upon earlier description of the Beneficiary's duties, and 
provided a breakdown of those duties, with the approximate percentage of time devoted to each task: 
Credit Financial Analysis Management- 50% total: 
• 20%: Analyze , research, evaluate , and provide written financial analysis and 
credit opinions on the credit worthiness of all assigned strategic customer 
3 
Matter ofT-M- Co. 
accounts in accordance with department procedures to ensure Sarbanes-Oxley 
(SOX) compliance. Provides credit opinions for values up to $4 million 
without the need for executive Company-level approval. 
• 20%: Oversee annual file reviews, credit file increases, and new customer 
credit applications. Apply expertise on international financial analysis and 
credit risk management. Evaluate customer and country risks by applying 
different analytical methods. Develop monitoring tools and reports. 
• 10%: Work with credit insurance brokers and credit insurance companies to 
obtain endorsements and to ensure compliance with insurance policies. 
Recommend and ultimately approve North American credit procedures. 
Provide internal input for Company credit policy to be approved by the 
executive VP Treasurer and SR. Credit Manager on an annual basis. 
Personnel Leadership - 30% total: 
• 10%: Lead, develop, and coach employees to retain and expand 
organizational talent through focused efforts. 
• 10%: Provide timely and constructive feedback on a regular basis to ensure 
adequate knowledge of team member roles and the Company's business. 
Manage performance issues. Deliver coaching and constructive criticism 
using the Company tools and annual employee review process. 
• 10%: Work with employees on career development plans. Guide direct 
reports to develop professional skills. Address personal employee needs and 
interests. 
Relationship Development Management -10%: 
• Lead credit meetings and represent the Company in credit group meetings and 
external trainings. 
• Oversee collaborative tasks and team communications such as [the 
Petitioner's] global sales activities. 
• Direct customer relationship building efforts by determining customer needs 
through on-site visits and conference calls. Collaborate with commercial area 
to lead credit activities and provide direction. 
• Manage credit training tasks throughout global Market to Cash teams. 
Order Release, Collection, and Metrics Oversight- 5%: 
• Manage daily order release systems for all assigned customers in accordance 
with department procedures. 
• Communicate, negotiate, and resolve credit hold situations for key 
stakeholders, including customers and the Market to Cash team. 
• Monitor and provide direction to Shared Services personnel on collection 
activities. 
• Oversee the resolution of collection issues. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter ofT-M- Co. 
• Ensure that receivables remain current and clean, including slow pays, short 
pays, credits, and disputes. 
• Ensure global credit metrics compliance by following up on the Company's 
aging and internal reports. Request feedback and monitor progress of 
customer service, credit analysts, and collection technicians. 
Geographic Management- 5%: 
• Work with credit personnel in the assigned Geography to ensure compliance 
and alignment of global credit policies and procedures, including the Global 
Risk Model. 
• Provide education and guidance to team members. Offer internal classes to 
educate employees on the Credit function through screen sharing 
presentations and conference calls. 
• Review, provide a credit opinion for, and process the credit requests for the 
Company's approval per credit policy. 
As examples of the Beneficiary's supervisory work product, the Petitioner submitted copies of 
employee evah,tations he issued to his subordinates. The evaluations showed that the subordinates 
are not, themselves, supervisors, and therefore the Beneficiary is a first-line supervisor. 
The Petitioner did not submit the requested descriptions of the Beneficiary's subordinates' job 
duties. stated that the Beneficiary 's "four (4) direct reports" are "full-time, professional 
employees." 
Although had indicated only that the Beneficiary had the authority to recommend 
hiring and firing, stated that the Beneficiary "is responsible for hiring the Credit function 
analysts that report directly to him," and "also has the authority to fire" those subordinates. 
The Director denied the petition on June 5, 2015, stating that "the beneficiary devotes most of his 
time to performing the non-qualifying, operational and administrative tasks of the petitioner's 
business ... [and] spends less than half, 30%, of his time on personnel leadership." The Director 
concluded that the Beneficiary does not primarily engage in qualifying managerial or executive 
functions. 
The Director noted that the four workers who report directly to the Beneficiary are not, themselves, 
supervisors or managers. The Director added that the Petitioner had not submitted job descriptions 
for those subordinates as requested in the RFE, and therefore the Petitioner had not established that 
the Beneficiary's subordinates are professionals. The Director concluded that "it appears that the 
beneficiary is a first-line supervisor of non-professional workers, the provider of actual services, or a 
combination of both." 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and supporting documents, including job descriptions for 
the credit analyst and senior credit analyst positions. The Petitioner asserts that "[t]hese positions 
5 
Matter ofT-M- Co. 
are professional positions as they require the attainment of a minimum of a bachelor's degree to 
perform the position." 
2. Analysis 
Upon review, and for the reasons stated below, we find that the Petitioner did not establish that it 
will employ the Beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
In general, when examining the executive or managerial capacity of a given position, we review the 
totality ofthe record, starting first with the description ofthe beneficiary's proposed job duties with 
the petitioning entity. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5G)(5). Published case law has determined that the duties 
themselves will reveal the true nature of the beneficiary's employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). We then 
consider the beneficiary's job description in the context of the petitioner's organizational structure, 
the duties of the beneficiary's subordinates, and any other relevant factors that may contribute to a 
comprehensive understanding of the beneficiary's actual duties and role within the petitioning entity. 
In addition, while performing non-qualifying tasks necessary to produce a product or service will not 
automatically disqualify the beneficiary as long as those tasks are not the majority of the 
beneficiary's duties, the petitioner still has the burden of establishing that the beneficiary IS 
"primarily" performing managerial or executive duties. See Section 101 (a)( 44) of the Act. 
The subordinates' job descriptions requested in the RFE, but not submitted until the appeal, provide 
the following breakdown of their duties: 
70% Review all assigned customer accounts in accordance to department 
procedures to ensure SOX compliance. 
10% Manage[] the order release system for all assigned customers in accordance 
with department procedures. 
10% Manage the accounts receivable to make sure it is clean, which includes slow 
pays, short pays, overpays and disputes. 
5% Evaluate the credit worthiness of all incoming credit applications for 
customers in your assigned area of responsibility in accordance with 
department procedures. 
5% Other related credit department activities including back-up and assistance to 
other Credit team members as needed. 
The Beneficiary's own job duties include many of the same tasks listed above, such as evaluating 
credit worthiness of applications and reviewing accounts receivable. Evaluating risks and 
developing monitoring tools and reports are, likewise, operational rather than managerial functions. 
These functions occupy 45% of the Beneficiary's time, according to the breakdown provided by the 
Petitioner. Another 15% of the Beneficiary's time consists of incompletely-defined activities such 
6 
Matter ofT-M- Co. 
as working with insurance brokers and companies and reviewing credit requests. The Petitioner has 
not fully explained what this work entails, to establish that it is managerial in nature. 
"Personnel Leadership" activities occupy only 30% of the Beneficiary's time. Supervisory duties 
account for much of another 15% of his time in the form of "Relationship Development 
Management" and "Geographic Management." Even then, one of the functions under "Geographic 
Management" is to review and process credit requests, which appears to be a duty also performed by 
his subordinate credit analysts. Therefore, the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary 
primarily performs managerial functions. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and 
"function managers." See section 101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A)(i) 
and (ii). Personnel managers are required to primarily supervise and control the work of other 
supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. Contrary to the common understanding of the 
word "manager," 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 101(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.50)(2). If a beneficiary directly supervises other employees, the beneficiary must also have 
the authority to hire and fire those employees, or recommend those actions, and take other personnel 
actions. 8 C.F.R. § 204.50)(2). 
The position descriptions submitted on appeal indicate that the subordinate positions of credit 
analyst and senior credit analyst qualify as professional. However, the record indicates that the 
Beneficiary spends less than half of his time supervising subordinate staff, and that he also performs 
many non-managerial duties that overlap with those performed by his subordinates. Accordingly, 
the record does not show that he is primarily performing the duties of a personnel manager. 
The Petitioner also claims in the alternative that the Beneficiary manages an essential function of the 
company. The term "essential function" is not defined by statute or regulation. If a petitioner claims 
that the beneficiary is managing an essential function, the petitioner must furnish a written job offer 
that clearly describes the duties to be performed in managing the essential function, i.e. identify the 
function with specificity, articulate the essential nature of the function, and establish the proportion 
of the beneficiary's daily duties attributed to managing the essential function. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(j)(5). In addition, the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's daily duties must 
demonstrate that the beneficiary manages the function rather than performs the duties related to the 
function. 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 sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the 
enumerated managerial or executive duties); see also Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 
I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm'r 1988). In this matter, the petitioner has not provided evidence that the 
beneficiary manages an essential function. 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter ojT-M- Co. 
The record indicates that the Beneficiary reports to a "credit manager" or "manager credit," 
indicating that he is not the Petitioner's ranking authority in terms of credit management issues. The 
Director requested a broader organizational chart, which would have given additional perspective on 
where the Beneficiary fits into his part of the petitioning entity, but the Petitioner did not submit that 
evidence. Omission of requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds 
for denying the petition under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). 
The Petitioner has consistently claimed that the Beneficiary manages the credit management 
function for the _ Minnesota office. The narrow focus of the organizational chart does not 
distinguish between credit management at the office and credit management for other 
locations. The limited information that the Petitioner has provided does not establish that the 
Beneficiary qualifies as a function manager. Rather, he reports to a similarly-titled higher official 
within the credit organization, and shares many operational duties with his subordinate credit 
analysts, to the extent that he appears to be, in many respects, a supervisory credit analyst rather than 
primarily a manager. 
For the above reasons, the Petitioner has not established that it seeks to employ the Beneficiary in a 
qualifying managerial capacity in the United States, and the Petitioner has not claimed that the 
Beneficiary would work in an executive capacity. Therefore, the appeal will be dismissed. 
B. Foreign Employment in a Qualifying Managerial or Executive Capacity 
If the beneficiary is already in the United States working for the foreign employer or its subsidiary or 
affiliate, then the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5G)(3)(i)(B) requires the petitioner to submit a 
statement from an authorized official of the petitioning United States employer which demonstrates 
that, in the three years preceding entry as a nonimmigrant, the beneficiary was employed by the 
entity abroad for at least one year in a managerial or executive capacity. 
1. Facts 
In her letter dated September 2, 2014, described the Beneficiary's past employment 
history. Only two positions fell within the three years preceding the Beneficiary's October 2013 
entry as a nonimmigrant. stated: 
From 2008 to 2012, [the Beneficiary] worked as Credit and Collection 
Supervisor with . in Argentina. In this role, [the 
Beneficiary] was responsible for the grain exchange process, collections, reporting, 
and sales management. He also led a team of fifteen (15) professional-level 
employees. He was responsible for the commercial partnership developing financing 
alternatives for [the company's] clients. He was also responsible for credit planning, 
financial and credit analysis, and authorizations with consideration of the credit 
policy. [The Beneficiary] was responsible for the standardization of the credit 
process aligned with the corporate process. He established new administrative 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter ofT-M- Co. 
processes from SAP implementation. [The Beneficiary] was responsible for material 
reduction of bad debts and implemented agricultural credit cards. 
From 2012 to 2013, [the Beneficiary] worked as Treasury 
Supervisor with in 
Argentina. In this role, [the 
Beneficiary] directed and oversaw the Treasury function of our Argentinian 
subsidiary. He managed risk and cash management activities for the Treasury 
function, as well as prepared and controlled budgets and cash flow tasks. He directed 
the development and execution of funding strategies and managed foreign exchange 
(FX) and regulatory procedures. [The Beneficiary] led market research efforts and 
oversaw the execution of hedging activities. He was responsible for developing key 
relationships with banks and insurance brokers, directing capital infusion analyses, 
and managing payments operations. He was also responsible for risk management, 
central bank compliance, cash management, FX management, bank relationship 
management, reporting management, and personnel leadership . [The Beneficiary] 
managed and led a team of two (2) professional-level employees . 
In the RFE, the Director stated that the Petitioner had "provided only a brief description of the 
beneficiary's duties abroad." The Director requested a letter from an authorized official of the 
foreign organization, describing the Beneficiary's specific daily tasks and the time spent on each 
duty. The Director also asked for an organizational chart showing the foreign entity's "overall 
structure and staffing levels." 
The Petitioner did not submit a letter from an authorized official of the foreign entity. The record 
shows that the Petitioner sold all of its Argentinian assets on 2014, two months after it 
filed the petition. The record does not reveal whether the company in Argentina still exists under 
new ownership, but it was no longer affiliated with the Petitioner when the Director issued the RFE. 
In response to the RFE, stated that the Beneficiary "worked for 
_ in Argentina as Treasury Supervisor for five (5) years, from 2008 to 
October 2013." Elsewhere in the same letter, repeated the prior claim that "[f]rom 2008 
to 2012, [the Beneficiary] worked as Credit and Collection Supervisor with 
and held the title of treasury supervisor "[f]rom 2012 to 2013." Regarding the 
credit and collection supervisor position, repeated the description from 
earlier letter. With respect to the Beneficiary's later position, stated: 
As Treasury Supervisor at [the 
Beneficiary] served in a managerial capacity as he (1) managed and oversaw the 
essential Treasury function within our organization; (2) supervised and controlled the 
work of other professional employees; (3) had the authority to hire, fire, and 
recommend personnel actions for his direct reports; ( 4) functioned at a senior level 
within our organizational hierarchy and functioned at a senior level with respect to 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter ojT-M- Co. 
the essential Treasury function he managed; and (5) exercised direction over the day­
to-day operations of a major subdivision within our organization. 
The Petitioner did not submit an organizational chart that showed the foreign organization's overall 
structure and staffing levels, as instructed in the RFE. Instead, the Petitioner submitted an 
organizational chart for "Treasury & Credits I the component of the company that 
had employed the Beneficiary. The chart included the following relevant information: 
Dir. Corp. Treasury 
I 
Treasury Manager S.C. 
I 
The Beneficiary 
Treasury Mgr. S.C. 
Treasury Analyst, Sr. Treasury Analyst, Jr. 
The foreign organizational chart showed the Beneficiary's title as "Treasury Manager," but all other 
documentation in the file states his title as Treasury Supervisor." 
asserted that both of the Beneficiary's subordinates identified above held bachelor's degrees. 
In the denial notice, the Director stated that the Petitioner did not break down the time the 
Beneficiary spent on various tasks while employed abroad, and therefore the Petitioner did not 
submit enough information to allow a determination that the Beneficiary "spent most of his time on 
qualifying executive or managerial duties." The Director also stated that "the record does not show 
the beneficiary supervised or controlled the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial 
employees, or managed an essential function of the foreign organization." 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary served in a managerial capacity as the 
treasury supervisor. The Petitioner submits copies of the resumes of the Beneficiary's former 
subordinates; a performance evaluation for one of those subordinates; and background information 
about financial managers. 
2. Analysis 
Upon review, and for the reasons stated below, we find that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary previously worked abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
The Petitioner has provided two conflicting claims (2008 and 20 12) as to when the Beneficiary 
became a treasury supervisor. The latter date is more plausible, given the assertion 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter ofT-M- Co. 
that the Beneficiary was a credit and collection supervisor from 2008 to 2012. The Petitioner has not 
specified when in 2012 the Beneficiary became a treasury supervisor. This 
information is material and relevant because the Beneficiary left the foreign company in October 
2013. Therefore, if his last foreign assignment began in late 2012, then he would have served for 
less than the required one year in that position. 
The record contains minimal information about the Beneficiary's work as a credit and collection 
supervisor. In response to the RFE and again on appeal, the Petitioner has instead emphasized the 
Beneficiary's subsequent position as treasury supervisor, stating that the position 
qualifies as managerial. (The Petitioner has not claimed that the position qualifies as executive.) 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's 2012-2013 foreign position meets all the 
requirements to establish managerial capacity. 
The Petitioner's initial discussion of the Beneficiary's work as a treasury supervisor 
provided few details about that position. The Petitioner listed vanous activities under the 
Beneficiary's oversight, such as "risk and cash management activities" and "developing key 
relationships with banks and insurance brokers," but the Petitioner did not specify what tasks these 
responsibilities entailed. In the RFE, the Director had requested an accounting of "[t]he specific 
daily tasks that ... were involved with the completion of each duty and the percentage of time spent 
on each duty." The Petitioner's response to the RFE somewhat expanded on the original description 
of the Beneficiary's foreign duties, but the Petitioner has not provided the type and level of detail 
that the Director had requested. 
As with the U.S. position, the Petitioner did not claim that the Beneficiary 's subordinates in 
Argentina were supervisory or managerial. The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary supervised 
"two professional employees" when he worked as the treasury supervisor. The 
Petitioner submits the resume of one of those subordinates, senior treasury analyst 
indicating that he earned a degree as a "Public Accountant." The record does not specify whether 
this degree is equivalent to a baccalaureate, and the resume does not establish that the treasury 
analyst position qualifies as professional. The Petitioner cannot meet its burden of proof by simply 
asserting that the positions were professional. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter 
of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm 'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of Caltfornia, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
The Petitioner did not provide its own descriptions of the treasury analyst positions. The senior 
treasury analyst's resume includes a capsule job description: 
Tasks 
and Responsibilities: Prepare and analyze Cash 
Position. Execute book transfers & recommend amount of Investments. Responsible 
for Risk Management. Support Accounting and Collections' areas on 
Banking Reconciliation. Foreign Trade back office. Prepare electronic and check 
payments. Bank accounts and software's management. Checks Portfolio custody, 
11 
(b)(6)
Matter ofT-M- Co. 
deposits and reconciliation. Booking Treasury operations m SAP. Argentina 
Compliances & Regulation. Bank Trading. 
The resume in the record appears to be an English translation of a presumably Spanish-language 
original. The regulation at 8 C .F .R. § 1 03 .2(b )(3) requires an English translation of a foreign­
language document to include the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate 
from the foreign language into English. The resume includes no such certification. Errors and 
imperfections in the English-language resume limit its evidentiary value. 
The submitted job descriptions are vague and general. For example, the job descriptions indicate 
that the Beneficiary was "responsible for risk management," while the senior treasury analyst was 
"[r]esponsible for Risk Management." These nearly-identical phrases suggest a 
degree of overlap between the Beneficiary ' s duties and those of his subordinates . 
asserted that the Beneficiary "was responsible for [the foreign company ' s] Treasury 
function," "functioned at a senior level within" the foreign company, and "reported directly to ... 
[the] Treasury Manager, who was employed in an executive-level managerial role." 
The Petitioner , on appeal, states that the organizational chart submitted in response to the RFE 
"clearly demonstrates that [the Beneficiary] was the third highest level employee within the Treasury 
function of the organization ." That chart showed only four levels of 
employees, and therefore the Beneficiary's rank on "the third highest level" does not attest to what 
the Petitioner calls a "senior level role within the Treasury function." Rather, it shows that the 
Beneficiary was a first-line supervisor of two treasury analysts . The Beneficiary reported to a 
"Treasury Manager," who, in tum, reported to a "Dir. Corp. Treasury." The Petitioner has not 
established that it was the Beneficiary, rather than those superiors, who managed the foreign 
company's treasury function. 
The Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary managed the organization, or a department, 
subdivision, function, or component of the organization, or managed an essential function therein. 
Like the U.S. organizational chart, the foreign organizational chart shows only a small component of 
the company without broader information to provide context. Such a chart need not account for 
every employee, but it should show the component's overall place within the company 's 
organizational structure. The Petitioner claims nearly 9,000 employees worldwide; the foreign 
organizational chart shows ten positions (including some outside the chain of command for the 
Beneficiary's position) 
The Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary had hiring and firing authority at the foreign company, 
and exercised discretion over the day-to-day operations of the treasury's activities. 
The Petitioner's description and information about the Beneficiary's former employment abroad 
shares many of the deficiencies identified above regarding the Beneficiary ' s current and intended 
future employment in the United States. The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
worked abroad in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity. 
12 
Matter ofT-M- Co. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternative 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 ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofT-M- Co., ID# 15717 (AAO Feb. 26, 2016) 
13